Will Biden drop out? Who replaces him?

[Loren Pechtel]

...
I don't give a shit about what the press wanted. What part of not being authorized to release that information do you not get?
...
Jesus fucking christ! What part of not being authorized to release that information do you not get?
...
Yes, I was. I said the doctor can release that information if he chooses. He is, however, not allowed to release the results of any examination without permission.
...
So you want her to lie. And then she can be attacked if it's found out she lied. And there was no controversy until that press conference.

We've spent enough time on this issue, and I don't think you've refuted my comments at all other than to just keep repeating your earlier position. So I'm moving on. I'm not spending any more time on the specific doctor, who has publicly admitted to examining Biden. My view is that the press secretary just made things worse by the way she handled the press, and that issue has now been superseded by tonight's press conference performance.

Apparently you do not comprehend how strict the medical privacy laws are.

I have had occasion to deal with the billing side of patient records--the laws weren't as strict back then but I still perfectly well know I can't talk about any names I might have seen.

 

[Copernicus]

...
We've spent enough time on this issue, and I don't think you've refuted my comments at all other than to just keep repeating your earlier position. So I'm moving on. I'm not spending any more time on the specific doctor, who has publicly admitted to examining Biden. My view is that the press secretary just made things worse by the way she handled the press, and that issue has now been superseded by tonight's press conference performance.

Apparently you do not comprehend how strict the medical privacy laws are.

I have had occasion to deal with the billing side of patient records--the laws weren't as strict back then but I still perfectly well know I can't talk about any names I might have seen.

I am as aware of HIPAA as you. As I explained to Zipr, the actual identity of the doctor was known, and the reason for the argument with reporters was that everyone knew she was stonewalling their questions with a pretense. They simply wanted to know whether Biden had been examined by a Parkinson's disease specialist, and more generally whether he was being treated for a neurological condition. It turns out that the doctor did examine him and claims to have found no evidence Parkinson's. Biden has made a point of being open and transparent about his health, so it was not out of line to ask these questions. I stand by my previous comments on this subject, which is not terribly newsworthy anymore.

In Biden's press conference, he pointedly refused to take any examinations to reassure the public of his fitness to become the Democratic nominee for President. Apparently, his last exam was in February, well before his disastrous debate performance, and it is unclear whether he has been examined since. The relevant point is that he seems afraid to commit to such an exam and release the result to the public. The calls for him to be examined continued during his press conference and will continue to come up. Joe Biden's tone deafness and intransigence on such issues is only making matters worse.

Now we see a snowballing of opposition to his candidacy among Democrats, despite vows just days ago that everyone was getting behind him. His press conference--the first since November of last year--was not impressive. Apparently, he has not had a full cabinet meeting since October of last year. And Democratic leaders are just becoming aware of how much effort has been made by those around him to hide signs of decline in his behavior.

House Democratic leader met with Biden about ‘the path forward’​

 

[Elixir]

The relevant point is that he seems afraid to commit to such an exam and release the result to the public.

Why he doesn't say " I will if HE will!" is beyond me... unless he has a real problem and is trying to hide it, which would be a problem... tone deafness is the very most benign explanation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In Biden's press conference, he pointedly refused to take any examinations to reassure the public of his fitness to become the Democratic nominee for President. Apparently, his last exam was in February, well before his disastrous debate performance, and it is unclear whether he has been examined since. The relevant point is that he seems afraid to commit to such an exam and release the result to the public. The calls for him to be examined continued during his press conference and will continue to come up. Joe Biden's tone deafness and intransigence on such issues is only making matters worse.

Now we see a snowballing of opposition to his candidacy among Democrats, despite vows just days ago that everyone was getting behind him. His press conference--the first since November of last year--was not impressive. Apparently, he has not had a full cabinet meeting since October of last year. And Democratic leaders are just becoming aware of how much effort has been made by those around him to hide signs of decline in his behavior.

House Democratic leader met with Biden about ‘the path forward’​

House Democrats who represent swing districts were said to have been brutal in their assessment of Biden’s chances of winning their district and states, according to three people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share private conversations.

link
Shades of 2016, but worse it sounds?

This is the significant part. Here is the letter.

“In my conversation with President Biden, I directly expressed the full breadth of insight, heartfelt perspectives and conclusions about the path forward that the Caucus has shared in our recent time together,” Jeffries wrote.

For those who do not have as fine tuned a sense of political pragmatism, there are roughly two sentences missing in that letter. At the end of the second paragraph, it does not include a concluding statement about how President Biden is part of that path. And there is no sentence about Minority Leader Jeffries ~"unequivocal support for President Biden".

My between the lines reading of that letter is "I told the President to step aside for this election". I can not ween away, however, "...and President Biden agreed." It could be in there, but I don't feel it.

Again, as far as Biden's health goes, we are in this world of perception being more important than truth.

 

[Copernicus]

I have to reiterate this, polls are unreliable. Even if Biden had Parkinson's (extremely unlikely), it is a condition that does not affect mentality, unlike Trump's dementia.
One of the greatest risks to Biden not winning the election is all these calls for him to step down, and disunity in Democratic Party, which is disloyalty that serves the Republican Party.
Another thing that would help the USA is if the media stopped making dubious claims about Biden and concentrated on revealing much more details of verified facts about Trump's mental and moral deterioration - his lies, his blackouts, his mental incompetence, and so on.

Exactly. So what if he has Parkinson's?

That's an excellent rhetorical question. I don't care whether he has Parkinson's or not. I'll vote for Biden simply because Donald Trump is far less qualified to be President and never should have been elected in 2016. The worst president in US history, he has been a disaster and now stands as a genuine threat to our very system of representative democracy. The problem is that over half the country doesn't agree with me or my political party. According to polling data, they would vote for Donald Trump today rather than see Joe Biden reelected. This far out, that data may be completely misleading, but consider this. Joe Biden pointed out that there have been at least three presidents before him that had lower poll numbers at this point in their terms. Those three were Jimmy Carter, HW Bush, and Donald Trump. Biden did not say who they were, but that's who they were. What Biden did not mention was that all three lost their reelection campaigns.

This controversy is not about Joe Biden's ability to run the country, his record, or his competence. It is about whether he can win the presidential election in November and help downballot Democrats to win theirs. Right now, the polling data says that he cannot. Only about a third of the country gives him a positive approval rating, and polls show that more than half of his own party want him to step aside. To ignore all of this is pure insanity. It is something out of Hans Christian Andersen's folktale The Emperor's New Clothes. Joe Biden is in denial, and so are a great many of his supporters who cannot face the reality of how much of a liability Joe Biden has become for his party and for the future of his country.

Your Emperor's new clothes analogy fails, as the emperor had 100% support from his citizens.
The analogy better applies to Trump - despite totally nakedly lying, his supporters still 100% support him.

I didn't apply the analogy to Trump supporters, but it can be applied to them, too. If you reread what I wrote, you'll find that I was applying it to those who believe that Biden can win the presidential election and help downballot Democrats. The little boy crying that the emperor is wearing no clothes would be those trying to tell fellow Biden supporters that he can run an effective reelection campaign.

 

[southernhybrid]

Perhaps the Dem leaders should have a meeting with Dr. Jill. I have a feeling that she may be the only one who can talk her husband into leaving race for president. She seems to think he's doing fine and doesn't have any medical problems which would prevent him from
performing the duties of the president. It's not that he is suffering from the dementia, it's the perception that he's too old and my be suffering from some age related cognitive decline, along with the obsession of commenting on every word he says, despite his life long issues with stuttering and making gaffes. I do wonder how it would go if she agreed to speak with the members of Congress who think he needs to give up the candidacy to someone younger. I doubt she would agree to such a meeting, but if she could be convinced, maybe she could convince him. Just a thought, or fantasy if you prefer.

 

[TSwizzle]

Perhaps the Dem leaders should have a meeting with Dr. Jill. I have a feeling that she may be the only one who can talk her husband into leaving race for president.

I saw report it is "Dr" Jill who insists Brandon keep in the race!

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm trying to share an opinion piece from Dana Millbank, but my post keeps getting lost. I'll try again.

https://wapo.st/4cP5arG

In Washington, President Biden assembled world leaders to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of NATO, which Biden has rebuilt and expanded over the last 3½ years. “The American people know that all the progress we’ve made in the past 75 years has happened behind the shield of NATO,” the (very) elder statesman told them, in the same room where Harry S. Truman signed the treaty forming the alliance. “And the American people understand what would happen if there was no NATO: another war in Europe, American troops fighting and dying, dictators spreading chaos, economic collapse, catastrophe.”


Biden rallied his counterparts to accept nothing short of victory in Ukraine. “When this senseless war began, Ukraine was a free country,” the president said, to applause from the world leaders. “Today, it is still a free country, and the war will end with Ukraine remaining a free and independent country. Russia will not prevail.”



In Miami a few hours later, former president Donald Trump assembled supporters at his Doral golf club — another transfer of wealth from his campaign to his personal accounts — and ridiculed NATO partners. “I didn’t even know what the hell NATO was too much before” he became president, Trump told them. “But it didn’t take me long to figure it out, like about two minutes. And the first thing I figured out was they weren’t paying.” He repeated his boast and said he told NATO partners that if they were “delinquent” (there is no such thing in NATO, which does not collect dues), “I will not protect you from Russia.”
Follow Dana Milbank's opinions
Follow
Thus did Trump celebrate his willingness to squander the deterrence that has kept the peace for decades, and instead to abandon allies to the tender mercies of Vladimir Putin, who just bombed a children’s hospitalin Ukraine. Trump says he’ll make Ukraine “settle” with the invading Russians, a surrender that Biden would never allow.
This is exactly what the presidential campaign should be about at this perilous moment: the choice between strong American leadership and appeasement, between democracy and dictatorship.

There is a lot more in his piece and imo, he makes a lot of good points. Why are we obsessing on Biden's little flaws when Trump's flaws are tremendous in comparison. Dana usually puts some humor in his articles too, which I think is a good coping mechanism.

But this is no longer what the campaign is about. The heavy-handed attempt to force Biden to quit the race after his disastrous debate has, predictably, backfired. Biden has dug in, pitting “elites” against the people. Democrats are fighting among themselves. George Clooney is diagnosing Biden’s mental competence (he played Dr. Doug Ross on “ER,” after all). And Republicans can hardly believe their good fortune, as they portray Biden as a zombie — with no good answer to their attacks.

Trump joked about Biden taking naps and struggling to lift a beach chair. He floated the idea that “Hunter is in the White House running government right now, they say.” Seizing on an Axios report that Biden is only “dependably engaged” between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., Trump claimed: “He can’t work because he’s mentally no good. He’s shot.”



The insults continued. “Cognitively impaired.” “Mentally incompetent.” “In no condition to lead.” Biden “has no idea where the hell he is.” His “facelift didn’t work.” As for Biden’s (accurate) argument that Trump threatens democracy, Trump said Biden “doesn’t even know what the hell the term is.”
“He has no clue what he’s doing or where he is, and next will be World War III because he doesn’t know what he’s doing,” Trump accused.
Alas, this is what the rest of the campaign is likely to be about if Biden remains in the race. Some of this is the fault of congenitally anxious Democrats and their allies rushing to force him from the race, which has understandably caused Biden to resist. Some is the fault of my colleagues in the news media, breathlessly keeping a deathwatch and tallying the (relatively few) Democratic lawmakers who have publicly called for him to quit. But Biden created this situation when his stunning debate collapse left serious and legitimate doubts about his fitness.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[southernhybrid]

Perhaps the Dem leaders should have a meeting with Dr. Jill. I have a feeling that she may be the only one who can talk her husband into leaving race for president.

I saw report it is "Dr" Jill who insists Brandon keep in the race!

Right. That is why I said she is probably the only one who can get him to give up the race, she is the one the Dem leaders need to meet with to try and convince her that Biden can't win etc.

 

[TSwizzle]

Perhaps the Dem leaders should have a meeting with Dr. Jill. I have a feeling that she may be the only one who can talk her husband into leaving race for president.

I saw report it is "Dr" Jill who insists Brandon keep in the race!

Right. That is why I said she is probably the only one who can get him to give up the race, she is the one the Dem leaders need to meet with to try and convince her that Biden can't win etc.

So you believe the reports that "Dr" Jill is the one that is insisting Brandon keep running are true? I'm surprised you do believe it. I mean it's not impossible that she is but is there any evidence? I just blew that notion off as click bait stuff. True or not, I'm sure "Dr' Jill can influence her husband one way or another but is that the route to take? Maybe.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps the Dem leaders should have a meeting with Dr. Jill. I have a feeling that she may be the only one who can talk her husband into leaving race for president.

I saw report it is "Dr" Jill who insists Brandon keep in the race!

You just can't type a woman's name without thinking of some way to denigrate her accomplishments somehow, can you?

 

[Elixir]

"" is a confirmation, in case you were wondering.

 

[lpetrich]

See Biden's fiery speech after shaky debate performance (CNN) : r/TheMajorityReport - two weeks ago

There is one big reason why Joe Biden refuses to step aside | Salon.com - June 30, 2024 6:00AM (EDT) - "Presidents and other politicians used to resign or retire for the good of the country. What's changed?"

Given the self-evident disaster that will ensue for democracy if Trump is reelected (as well as the planet, once you factor in Trump's denial of climate change), it still behooves Trump's opponents to do whatever it takes to make sure he loses in November. For that to occur, however, one of two things must happen: Either Biden needs to slay the pride in his soul that chooses self-glorification over patriotism, or Americans need to overcome the ageism that makes so many of them recoil at Biden's obvious advancing years. Neither appears likely to happen — and to understand what ails American politics today, it is useful to examine why.

Then mentioning Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Mitch McConnell, and Dianne Feinstein.

For much of US history, many Presidents have decided to have only one term in office. John Tyler in 1844, James Polk in 1848, James Buchanan in 1860, Andrew Johnson in 1868, Rutherford Hayes in 1880, Calvin Coolidge in 1928, Harry Truman in 1952 and LBJ in 1968. Were they exhausted? Unpopular? Both?

Whatever happened, LBJ was the last President to do so, and he did so after seeing himself do poorly in the primaries. But in 1980, Jimmy Carter ran a second time, despite seeing evidence of weakness, and in 1992, George Bush I also did so.

Only three attempts were rejected by their parties, Millard Fillmore in 1852, Franklin Pierce in 1856, and Chester Arthur in 1884.

All these Presidents ran for re-election and lost: John Adams in 1800, John Q. Adams in 1828, Martin Van Buren in 1840, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Benjamin Harrison in 1892, William Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Gerald Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush in 1992 and Trump in 2020.

Winners: George Washington in 1796, Thomas Jeffferson in 1804, James Madison in 1812, James Monroe in 1820, Andrew Jackson in 1832, Abraham Lincoln in 1864, Ulysses S. Grant in 1872, Chester Arthur in 1892 despite losing in 1888, William McKinley in 1900, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, Woodrow Wilson in 1916, Calvin Coolidge in 1924, FDR in 1936, 1940, and 1944, Harry Truman in 1948, Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, LBJ in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996, George Bush II in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2012.

This pattern of presidential selfishness even extends to impeachments. Of the three presidents to be impeached in modern history (four if you count Richard Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned first), only one (Nixon) resigned in order to spare America the ordeal of a prolonged trial. The next two presidents to be impeached, Bill Clinton and Trump, stayed in office regardless of the consequences for America. America even had a Supreme Court judge, Abe Fortas, resign because of a financial scandal rather than allow it to impugn the reputation of the court, a concern that does not seem to beset today's allegedly corrupt judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

 

[lpetrich]

Why stay on?

The answer is semi-psychological. While it is difficult for people who toil at miserable jobs to appreciate, individuals who sincerely enjoy their work do not want to quit for a simple reason: their specific employment is pleasurable to them.

...
There is more to this than psychology, however. Just as Washington famously warned that a demagogue might refuse to relinquish power after losing an election (which did not happen until Trump lost to Biden in 2020), so too did the founding fathers in general worry about politicians choosing to act like royalty.

Then discussing ageism.

If you ask older individuals if they would like to go back in time to their early years, most say they wouldn't mind occupying their younger bodies, but the thought of being insecure, with little life experience, emotional insecurities, an unsettled love life, no job, little or no money, etc. etc., is very unappealing. Older individuals should be thought of as one of society's most precious resources that should be nurtured and valued, not discarded. Younger people should aspire to get there healthy rather than fearing extended survival.

 

[Toni]

This is the court that the GOP built under W and Trump. These states are considering this legislation because SCOTUS ruled there is no Constitutional protection to an abortion and Thomas indicated that they should also look at all the protections presumed to exist by SCOTUS tied to the right to privacy.

I'm not fixated on abortion like most on here so I don't have a lot of knowledge on the legal and constitutional standings of the subject. From the little knowledge I do have about the subject the "right" to abortion ruling (Roe v Wade) was always a bit shaky.

Abortion just isn't an important issue for me. Have at it.

Abortion rights should be your concern. For starters they really are fundamentally about what rights a person, male or female, has to make medical decisions involving her own body that do not impact others. Women’s rights are human rights. They are not just about women. They impact all of us.

Second the Supreme Court taking away a right at women had for over 50 years is utterly stunning and appalling. The abortion debate is a religious issue. It’s about whether we are going to allow these fucking fundamentalists to rule over the rest of us or whether we are going to retain our basic freedom of religion, including to be an atheist. The rejection of abortion rights has put us under the authority of these cocksuckers in many states and they will seek, and are seeking, to overturn many other constitutional rights we take for granted that stemmed from the abortion ruling. This includes a right to privacy and access to birth control. You can expect even more rights to be rolled back - soon marital rape will be legal and yes they advocate for that. Used to be that way too.

You should really reconsider your position.

The other thing to keep in mind: Removing the right to abortion is also an economics move. It's a way to ensure (or attempt to ensure) a steadier stream of new workers entering the pipeline--particularly those without much economic opportunity so that we have access to a more or less permanent underclass to exploit for their labor. This limits the need for more and more immigrant labor, with the extra expenses at the local levels that a significant immigrant presence entails.*

*I do NOT mean to imply that immigrants do not contribute more than they cost an economy BUT it is a fact that schools do struggle to meet the needs of immigrant children who may speak any language--and the school is obligated to teach them and to help them pass the needed tests to graduate and the school itself is graded on its success--with funding attached. It is absolutely the right thing to do: to provide free access to excellent education services to all residents--not limited to all citizens.

Most of the people pushing the abortion ban know very well that the 'right' people who might need an abortion will always have access to those services. But that's a small group of people.

 

[Toni]

Why stay on?

The answer is semi-psychological. While it is difficult for people who toil at miserable jobs to appreciate, individuals who sincerely enjoy their work do not want to quit for a simple reason: their specific employment is pleasurable to them.

...
There is more to this than psychology, however. Just as Washington famously warned that a demagogue might refuse to relinquish power after losing an election (which did not happen until Trump lost to Biden in 2020), so too did the founding fathers in general worry about politicians choosing to act like royalty.

Then discussing ageism.

If you ask older individuals if they would like to go back in time to their early years, most say they wouldn't mind occupying their younger bodies, but the thought of being insecure, with little life experience, emotional insecurities, an unsettled love life, no job, little or no money, etc. etc., is very unappealing. Older individuals should be thought of as one of society's most precious resources that should be nurtured and valued, not discarded. Younger people should aspire to get there healthy rather than fearing extended survival.

Sure, sure but I think that Biden is less self centered than that. I think that Biden is as aware as you or I or anyone else that it is too late in the game to switch candidates without a very clear and very serious reason to do so. If the party elite was so unhappy with Biden in the months leading up to primaries, that was the time to mount challenges to a second term.

As it is, suppose those who call for Biden to step down are right: he's not up to the job anymore. Or suppose that will be true in 6 months or a year or 3 years. What happens then? What happens is that Kamala Harris assumes the POTUS role. Given that Harris is the most obvious heir apparent anyway, and the person most likely to win the nomination if it is not Biden, then why not stick with Biden? If he can't do it, she can.

For myself, I do not like Harris' chances at a win as POTUS in 2024. I think that's ridiculous but that's what I do think. She will lose the most progressive voters and she will also lose all the closet bigots and sexists. Sometimes people are very stupid and cannot see that an imperfect candidate is better than a second Trump term. Electing a pile of dog shit is preferable. Not that I think that Harris is comparable to a pile of dog shit. I think she's quite a good candidate and would be a competent POTUS. Perhaps even a very good one. But unfortunately not everyone is smart enough to look at the very stark choices we have:

(democratic candidate) V Trump. It does not actually matter who it is who defeats Trump, so long as someone does. I think Biden has the best chance.

 

[laughing dog]

Biden is pretty adamant about not dropping out.
Will all the chicken littles STFU and knuckle down to get Biden elected or inadvertently continue to help Trump?

 

[lpetrich]

I've seen this speculation as to why the New York Times is concern trolling Joe Biden so much about dropping out:

The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House - POLITICO - 04/25/2024 01:17 PM EDT

Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.

Which seems VERY petty. It's like something Gore Vidal recounted in "A Passage to Egypt" (1963, collected in various places) about Egyptian officials wanting to buy some ad space in the NYT for stating their case. The paper turned them down. As a result, GV wrote, these officials are somewhat cynical about the US's "free press".

 

[lpetrich]

Only the 'Lord Almighty' could compel me to quit - Biden

Speaking to ABC News on Friday, Mr Biden also declined to take a cognitive test and make the results public in order to reassure voters he is fit to serve another term.

"I have a cognitive test every single day. Every day I have that test - everything I do [is a test]," he told George Stephanopoulos.

...

• Attempted to ease Democratic fears he had lost ground to Donald Trump since the debate, saying pollsters he had spoken to said the race was a "toss-up"
• Rejected suggestions allies may ask him to stand aside. “It’s not going to happen," he said
• Dismissed repeated questions about what would compel him to leave the race. "If the Lord Almighty came down and said, ‘Joe, get out of the race,’ I’d get out of the race,” he said. “The Lord Almighty’s not coming down”

The president answered questions more clearly than he did on the debate stage last week, but his voice again sounded weak and occasionally hoarse.

It was a sharp contrast to his performance at a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, on Friday, where an energised Mr Biden acknowledged his disastrous performance in last week's CNN debate. "Ever since then, there’s been a lot of speculation. What’s Joe going to do?” he told the crowd.

“Here’s my answer. I am running and going to win again,” Mr Biden said, as supporters in the crucial battleground state cheered his name.

That entity continues to make no statement on his continued candidacy.