President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

They’d use Israel against him somehow. One day, they’d claim he was too Pro Israel. The next, insufficiently Pro Israel.

 

Wasn't it part of a running blog? As in, it was supposed to recap only part of the debate?

 

I believe Jan. 6, above all other things, is the chief disqualifying event for Donald Trump - why he can't be president.

I am also saying I have believed that for more than 3 years. And just about everyone else who believes it, has believed it.

And the people who don't believe it, don't believe it.

Jan. 6 as a question has resonance here, on a site that is comprised of 100% Harris voters, and little resonance in a space that are all Trump voters.

You may view Vance as evil, but he's clearly not dumb, and if he thought the Jan. 6 answer he gave is a losing answer, he wouldn't have given it.

Now, Vance's answer on abortion...you know he knows that's a weak position for Republicans, and for him, because he in essence offered a softened position from what he normally says.

 

I have a bit of a possible grumble with the Democratic debate prep team. I don’t even know if it has been the same folks through Biden/Harris/Walz. I think Biden might have been worn out by too many fact-cramming sessions. Harris v Trump was the Donald shit show most predicted and Kamala had barbs in her pocket to spur his madness, but she didn’t use succinct arguments to bring the policy differences home (explaining how tariffs become effectively sales taxes, for example).

The Walz prep folks knew for a while that he would get the opening opportunity to speak. Walz could have used the initial minute to set the stage for the debate, introduce himself to unknowing voters or poke Vance to react. I think either result would have been better than a few seconds of a deer-in-the-headlights expression and then launching into an answer to the question. He might have taken a little more control.

That quibble aside, this seemed to be what “normal” debates were before Trump’s firebombing. It was a bit boring and dry. I think some folks might be a little disappointed that the feckless moderators didn’t poke them with sticks while murmuring, “Fight! Fight!”

But even the most memorable moments from historical VP debates (“You’re no Jack Kennedy” “Who am I and why am I here?”) didn’t have a noticeable effect on election results.

 

I clicked on his byline, and that was the most recent headline on his list of articles. If there’s additional columns, I couldn’t find them.

 

What I mean is, weren't a bunch of NYT columnists writing little things as the debate progressed?

 

Biden stopped any remaining Palin momentum. 70 million people watched it.

 

The bar is low when you're seen to have won a debate because you were articulate and sounded reasonable. Style over substance as usual. Vance, who I still cannot believe my state elected somewhat convincingly (this does not bode well for Sherrod Brown nexst month, by the way), practically went two hours last night without saying a single thing that was true. While Walz wasn't flawless, at least he tried to be a little honest.

 

Vance, he’s smooth, but his policies at batshit crazy.

JD Vance’s debate lines were so polished you could forget they made no sense | Moira Donegan

 

Palin’s momentum was downward from the start.

 

This is deep denial, folks. Or as I said back in 2020, if a baseball player went 0-for-60, he probably wouldn't be a baseball player any more.