Electoral-vote.com for Smartphone

Main page Jun. 30

Pres map

Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: MI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA ME MI NV PA

Sunday Q&A

This is a "special edition" Q&A, for lack of a better description. We chose a baker's dozen worth of questions related to the debate. We'll get to some of the other questions asked this week in next Saturday's regularly scheduled Q&A. Also, we had inadvertertently entered the Marquette poll of Wisconsin twice and today remvoved one of them, making the state a tie.

The Debate

K.G. in Longmont, CO, asks: Think about this possible scenario for a minute. What if a nuclear weapon was launched from Russia or North Korea and it was headed to the U.S. Biden has less then 7 minutes to decide how to respond to a situation like this. For the best outcome to be reached, would you want Biden making a decision of what to do in this type of scenario? If we did not intercept the missile in time it would be a catastrophe no matter who is in office, but for the ones we love I would definitely not want Biden being in charge of the nuclear football in such a predicament.

(V) & (Z) answer: This is undoubtedly in response to the question we posed at the end of yesterday's post: "Now that I have seen Biden's decline, I guess I will have to vote for Trump, because at least Trump ________________________."

We actually considered this exact scenario, and then decided not to write it into our item, because we decided that it's too improbable to justify the extra verbiage. But now that you ask:

There has never been a nuclear strike against the United States, and that's in 80+ years of "the nuclear age." And such a strike is inconceivable; any country that tried it would be bombed into oblivion by the U.S. and/or by the nation's allies.

Similarly, no country is going to lob a single bomb at the United States. North Korea would hit South Korea, not the U.S., while Russia would send a massive volley, if an attack on the U.S. was really what they decided to do. In either case, there is no "quick thinking" by the sitting president that will change the outcome of the attack. And if a counterattack is called for, it will, as noted above, take place with or without presidential approval. The United States' nuclear submarines have authority to launch a strike of their own volition.

If some sort of action IS needed, there is zero chance that the military will stand on ceremony, and say "well, guess we'll let New York be obliterated because the President is unable to respond." Legal or not, they will take matters into their own hands. The nuclear codes are not some sort of secret password, like an ATM pin number. All they are is the proof that the person giving the order (i.e., the president) is who they claim to be. It is entirely possible to launch nuclear weapons without presidential involvement.

Biden hesitating for a few seconds under the harsh spotlight of the debate stage is far, far removed from "He will freeze completely for 5-20 minutes, unable to process anything whatsoever."

Does anybody really believe that Trump would be capable of handling this same scenario?

We would suggest two lessons here. First, the question we posed practically begged readers to send in responses. We got a total of two, and they both proposed ultra-extreme long-shot situations. That suggests to us that the point we made was valid, and that what happened Thursday didn't really make a compelling case for switching from one candidate to the other.

The second lesson is that the president is just one big cog in the machine, and the machine can actually function pretty well without him, when needed (see the second terms of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, etc.). But while the guardrails that protect against a poorly functioning president have proven to be pretty effective, the last decade has shown that the guardrails that protect against a malignant president are not so effective. So, it seems to us that even if a person decides they are choosing between a vegetable and a fascist, it's still a pretty easy choice.

P.G. in Madrid, Spain, asks: When assessing the Biden performance, you wrote that the real damaging part was the first 15 minutes. I agree... except for the closing statement. I think that even an average closing statement would have limited the damage done in those first 15 minutes. But as it were, the closing statement by Biden reinforced the impression left at the beginning, reminded the viewers of what happened in the first minutes. As likely as not, much blame should go to the prep team. It should not be so difficult to prepare a couple minutes to close the debate. But, either the team or Biden himself did a terrible job in delivering it. Would you agree? What could have happened to reverse the more or less competent Biden of most of the debate to the Biden of the first minutes?

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you our two best theories. First, Biden clearly did worse when he was trying to convey pre-scripted talking points than when he was freestyling. The opening portion of the debate and the closing statement were the two most scripted potions. Second, Biden seems to have been feeling the pressure to hit the bullseye. And the two most important parts of the debate, and thus most pressure-filled, are the opening portion and the closing statement.

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you use the Socratic method of questioning to analyze news? If so, could you share with us anxious types those questions so we anxious types might run through them whenever things go wrong every other day or so?

(V) & (Z) answer: We wouldn't quite have framed it that way, but we suppose we do. It is definitely a regular occurrence that we say to ourselves: "If [Proposition X] is true, then that would imply [Y]. Does this make sense? Does the evidence support this?"

The presidential debate is a pretty good example of this process in action. We reflected on the debate for 24 hours or so, and it occurred to us to ask the question we note above: ""Now that I have seen Biden's decline, I guess I will have to vote for Trump, because at least Trump ________________________." We struggled to find answers that satisfied that proposition (in other words, it doesn't make sense). And then we looked at what data we could find (the three polls we discussed) and found that the evidence thus far does not support a migration from Biden to Trump.

R.P. in Kāne'ohe, HI, asks: First of all, congratulations on a magnificent post on Saturday ("The Day After")! It's one of the best I've read in the two decades I've been regularly reading this site. You mentioned that the post may trigger some questions, and indeed that is the case here.

You wrote, "Finally, there is only one candidate on the list that would largely not be subject to most of these concerns [regarding liabilities for running for President instead of Joe Biden], and that is Michelle Obama. However, she has said over and over that she despises electoral politics, and that she has no interest in running for president or any other office." I've seen this same sentiment (i.e., that Michelle Obama could plausibly win the Presidency if she wanted to) expressed multiple times, both previously on Electoral-Vote.com and elsewhere. I can think of only two people who I've seen other respectable commentators suggest might have been in a similar situation: Oprah Winfrey (during the heights of her popularity), and General Colin Powell (during the Clinton v. Dole era); both of whom, like Obama, rejected the suggestion.

Winfrey might have just been wishful thinking among the political punditry at the time (although if Trump proved anything, it's that one doesn't need experience in politics to become president if one is a celebrity of sufficient stature). However, both Obama now (for the Democrats) and Powell in the 1990s (for the then-sane-but-already-declining Republicans) seem like good examples.

This prompts two questions: (1) Are there other examples in American presidential politics where a person was so widely-respected by the populace that a run for president had a plausible chance of success, but who resisted the call? and (2) Are the recent examples (e.g., Winfrey, Powell, Obama) actually plausible election-winners? Or are they most-likely examples of some sort of partisan fantasy that, if actually put through the ringer of an election campaign, would most likely have failed the bid (see Clark, Wesley)?

(V) & (Z) answer: Your first question is easier. High-ranking generals who win wars are always hot commodities in American politics. It is a near certainty that if William T. Sherman had wanted to follow Ulysses S. Grant as president in 1876, he could have done it. But he steadfastly refused. Similarly, if Dwight D. Eisenhower had not accepted the Republican Party's entreaties in 1952, Douglas MacArthur could probably have been elected president.

Prior to the 20th century, it was somewhat difficult to achieve the necessary level of notoriety to be a national figure unless you were prominent in politics, the military or religion. Pretty much any politician who was a viable president took a shot at it. Pretty much any military figure who was a viable president, outside of Sherman, took a shot at it. And religious figures, like, say, Henry Ward Beecher, would have done well with voters of similar religious persuasions, but would have been crushed by adherents of different religious persuasions.

In the 20th century, there were more paths to celebrity available, and we can think of a few non-politicians who might have made a serious run at the White House. Will Rogers, who was basically his generation's Jon Stewart, is a possibility, but he was apparently not interested, and he died unexpectedly and pretty young. Charles Lindbergh might have been able to do it, but his period of celebrity happened to coincide with the decline of his party (the Republicans) and the rise of the near-unbeatable Franklin D. Roosevelt. We could conceive of Walter Cronkite possibly making a run, but he wasn't interested.

Of the three individuals you name, Obama and Powell would surely have been serious political forces if they ran. They had firsthand experience with playing the game of national politics and they both played it well. Winfrey was and is popular, but plenty of popular people have wilted once they were put under the microscope. So, we have serious doubts about her, especially since her shtick is "nice," and you can't always be nice in politics. Similarly, you did not name this person, but the notion that The Rock could run for president is risible.

R.K. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: Among the mountain of lies that Donald Trump told during the debate, I couldn't help notice the one truth that Trump keeps telling, and that is about accepting the election results. Whenever anybody asks him about accepting the 2024 election results, Trump hems and haws, avoids the question, or adds the "If the election is fair" qualifier that we all understand to mean "If I win." Trump clearly has no qualms with lying about anything and everything under the sun, so why would he not just say that he will accept the election results, full stop, get his good press, prevent people from being scared off voting for him, and just go back on his word if he loses the election?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because one major purpose of Trump's lies is to communicate to his followers what they should believe, and to communicate to his enablers what they should pretend to believe. If he effectively gives permission to these folks to accept the election results, he might not be able to reverse course when he needs to do so.

K.S. in Sun City Center, FL, asks: I have been following you for several years now and truly value your expertise. Concerning President Biden's performance at the debate: He is a consummate politician with decades of experience. He has said he believes "timing" is everything. Is it possible his debate performance was somewhat intentional (maybe getting a little out of hand for him) so as to rally reluctant Democrats and anti-Trump voters out of complacency. In other words, to shake up the race? Sort of to get sympathy for himself believing in the end voters will choose democracy. I know that's farfetched but I'm being hopeful.

(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry, but we think it's very farfetched. Very. To play into your opponent's main line of attack would be somewhere between "insanely bold" and "insane." Politicians are risk averse, on the whole, and just don't take chances like that.

D.D. in Portland, OR, asks: Where's Kamala?

Clearly nothing will make Joe Biden leave the race except for a note from his mortician. Though he had a rally Friday where he appeared his more robust self, I think it's fair to say that if he gets re-elected there's a reasonable chance he will not finish his term. Heck, he has my vote locked up and I can't help but wonder "then what?" Wouldn't this be the ideal time for the VP to do many more rallies, interviews and the like? Give the people confidence that they are voting for leadership and a vision, not just a person.

(V) & (Z) answer: On the night of the debate, she was talking to everyone who put a microphone in front of her. Too bad the debate ended after their bedtimes, because the staff of the East Cupcake Middle School Reporter could have had quite a scoop. And since then, Harris has been double duty on the campaign/rally circuit.

However, with only rare exceptions, what the VP does is not national news. So, you are not likely to hear about her doings unless you specifically search them out. It is also the case that her efforts tend to be targeted at groups and communities where the campaign thinks she will do the most good. So, a Black woman of childbearing age is much more likely to hear about and from Harris than a white male Baby Boomer.

D.T. in Columbus, OH, asks: While I don't think it is likely the Democrats will replace Biden as the nominee, let's imagine they did. Who are the current Biden voters that Kamala Harris might lose?

Switching from Biden to Harris might slightly improve enthusiasm for younger generations, women, and Black voters. Are there any demographics you would expect to see significant losses among? Most of the sexist and racist voters are already on team Trump, so presumably Harris wouldn't lose many of Biden's voters there. Isn't this a net gain?

Are there many groups that only Biden is able to reach, who wouldn't line up behind a replacement Democrat candidate?

(V) & (Z) answer: Scranton Joe does much better with organized labor than Harris does. Baby Boomer Joe (who isn't actually a Baby Boomer, but close enough) does much, much better with senior-citizen voters than Harris does.

T.B. in Detroit, MI, asks: Is it possible to know which prominent Democratic politicians were most Googled on Thursday morning?

(V) & (Z) answer: Go to Google trends, and poke around there. If you look at the topline searches, you will see that people care way more about soccer than they do about politics, and that the only politician to be in the Top 25 searches in the 24 hours after the debate was Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), because his wife died.

If you want to know what would-be-president politicians are being searched for, then pick one of them to "explore," and then look at "related topics" at the bottom of the screen. We chose Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), which told us that in addition to a bunch of searches for her, the other potential presidents who got searched for a bunch are, from most to least searched, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Kamala Harris, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) and... Tulsi Gabbard.

A.M. in Bradford, UK, asks: Given the debate performance, do you think Sonia Sotomayor is considering her future career plans right now?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will actually have a longer item about this tomorrow.

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Do you think Joe Biden's very poor debate performance will give a boost to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign? Will the Democratic vote be split between Biden and RFK Jr. (if he makes it onto most states' ballots) allowing Trump to win with his typical 49% of the vote?

(V) & (Z) answer: In the short term, maybe. In the long term, probably not.

If a person wants to have a voice in the presidential election, they have a choice of two candidates for whom they can vote: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. So, if Biden really and truly lost people who were planning to vote for him, or who were seriously considering him, on Thursday, it is likely that they are now "undecided" or are voting for Trump.

A vote for Kennedy is a protest vote, and nothing more. Anyone convinced that the system is corrupt, or that both candidates are unacceptable, was already in his camp (or those of Jill Stein, Cornel West, etc.).

D.B. in Glen Burnie, MD, asks: If Joe Biden were to withdraw from the race, do you think that Jill Biden might make a good substitute? She could bring all of Joe's positives without the "old man losing it" mantle. A lot of our best leaders have been women who succeeded their husbands (granted, mostly through death) and followed through on the same platform. It would seem to me to be a good way to change horses without changing the saddle and without a lot of Democratic in-fighting.

(V) & (Z) answer: We have not seen that suggestion... anywhere. It's certainly interesting, and she might well be the most viable non-Michelle-Obama alternative out there. We have no basis for judging if she could actually win, other than the fact that the sins of Bill tended to stick to Hillary when she tried a similar trick.

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: With all this talk of Joe Biden stepping aside and releasing his delegates, if that happens will that mean there will be no Democratic presidential nominee on the ballot in Ohio?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think so. Ohio HB 2 has not yet been posted to the state legislature's website, so we can't check for sure, but by all indications, the bill just changed the deadline for the Democrats to name a candidate, it did not grant dispensation to Biden by name.

Sunday Mailbag

It's all letters about the debate, as we previewed in yesterday's post. Two things to note. First, we're starting with some letters about how we (and others) covered the debate because we think they give context, even if they're not #1 in terms of overall importance. Second, there are eight letters in the "Joe Must Stay" section and four letters in the "Joe Must Go" section. Those numbers were calibrated to match the overall breakdown of the mailbag, which was almost exactly 2:1 in favor of "Joe must stay." It's kinda like the "Remainers" and the "Leavers" in the U.K. a couple of years ago.

Politics—The Debate: Coverage

R.J.C. in Melbourne, VIC, Australia, writes: Your "The Day After" posting is (by a considerable margin) the most thoughtful, balanced and helpful collection of observations and reflections on the presidential debate that I have seen.

I would like to acknowledge and express deep appreciation for the immense care and effort you clearly put into this posting in particular. Your willingness to acknowledge those aspects that you may have misjudged (i.e. the likely audience size for the debate, the extent of culpability of the CNN "moderators," the possibility of recovery from this Biden misstep) is a refreshing contrast to many other sources, as is your insightful review of the available options for Biden and Democrats.

These are dark days and we're truly in uncharted territory, but you have provided the closest thing to a compass.

(V) & (Z) respond: We chose your message for two reasons. First, to represent the many kind and positive messages we got from readers after our Friday and Saturday posts. That includes messages from readers who disagreed with some/most of what we wrote, but appreciated that we gave them something to think about. Second, because your message allows us to reiterate, once again, how surprised we are at the response the day after. We thought it was a certainty that Biden would take a huge hit, and the question was whether he would recover eventually. We did not conceive that he would receive what appears to be, so far at least, a mere glancing blow.

L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: Wow, your analysis of the debate is astonishing!

The debate featured the Joe Biden we have seen the last 4 years, a mentally confused drugged-up old man. You have succeeded in contributing to making the world a very dangerous place the last 4 years by spreading your ridiculous propaganda porn.

Your team, the Democratic establishment and legacy media have been lying to everyone by hiding Joe Biden's cognitive decline.

I take comfort that you are lying to yourself and have to live with yourself. Good luck with that.

(V) & (Z) respond: And we chose this message to represent the many unpleasant e-mails we received. Though please note, the positive ones (again, including messages from readers who disagree with some/most of our analysis) outnumbered the mean-spirited ones by a ratio of at least 6:1.

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I want to thank you for "The Day After." I found it one of the most concise and well-thought-out pieces on the debate that I've seen. I can't say I've gotten over my onrush of despair and belief that I might spend my last days in some Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag for various and sundry Anti-Trump crimes. Still, your item helped a bit and perhaps with further time, I can regain confidence and dare I say it, hope.

On the other hand, one could not use "concise" and "well-thought-out" to describe the New York Times editorial board. In the quote you provided, the wise editor of the Times said, "There is no reason for the [Democratic] party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr Trump's deficiencies and those of Mr Biden. It's too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr Biden's age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes."

"Mr Trump's deficiencies"—that is an interesting word choice by the editorial board. There was no other word that best describes a habitual liar, con-man, grifter, racist, misogynist, xenophobe, bully, felon, sexual assaulter and who is charged with trying to overthrow an election and stealing federal Top Secret documents for reasons we still don't understand. Deficiencies. Not the word choice that I would have made but the editorial board of the New York Times has to be so much smarter than me.

Their argument is that Biden should remove himself from the election for the betterment of our democracy and future of the country. I will give that serious consideration, especially given that the Times is the paper of record, and has called so vigorously for "Mr. Trump" to stand down from seeking the presidency due to his "deficiencies." Wait, what's that you said? They never called for Trump to abandon his run for office. Surely, that can't be right?

Let's look at some other words from the people running the hallowed New York Times. Back at the start of May of this year, Joe Kahn, the Times' Executive Editor, said these words, "So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It is the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening. It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have...

"We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that's very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side?"

Interesting that this two-sided coin of the Times doesn't seem so equal. While Kahn is so worried about the inappropriateness of seeming to side with the Biden campaign, at the drop of a hat the Times' editorial board suddenly inserts themselves as a trusted political advisor to the Biden campaign, begging President Biden to quit. What are seemingly minor deficiencies in one man suddenly become horrendous faults in the others. Mr. Kahn, what happened to protecting the democratic rights of some people in the world who choose to reelect President Biden? You would think, based on your words when the tables were turned, that would be Trump and his team's job and not yours. When one candidate had a cold that made him sluggish during a debate, that's a crime that needs to be denounced in the loudest possible voice. But the candidate that has plans to set himself up as a dictator on Day 1? Well, that's just a few quibbling deficiencies that the Times feels honor-bound to overlook. Kahn seems to think that news organization's only duty is to fairness and balance. Somewhere in their posing for their statue, Kahn and his buddies simply forgot their duty to truthfulness, fact-finding and public accountability and chucked those unceremoniously out the nearest window. I guess they rationalize Trump's 30+ lies in 40 minutes as a sign of his vigor and mental sharpness.

In their editorial demanding that President Biden step aside, the Times board said that this is too big of a deal to hope that Americans will overlook Biden's debate performance. There are many things that will happen in the future that are clouded from my knowing but one of those is not that Americans will be able to overlook that, since I have no doubt that the Times will spend every inch of print they can spare to remind them incessantly. I bet right now the intrepid reporters of the Times have fanned out to every rural diner to get "Real America's" perspective and opinion on Biden's performance. I do not doubt that every GOP and MAGA operative with a cell phone, fax or landline has been called so as to plumb their insightful opinion—all for the sake of "fairness," of course. Because God forbid that it might appear like the Times was favoring one candidate over the other, or seemingly working for their campaign.

Speaking of word choices, the ones I would use to describe the New York Times would be "enablers" and "collaborators," worthy of any Vichy state. I'm certain that if Trump wins, Kahn and his fellow editors will be lined up on the street as Trump in his motorcade whizzes past, streams of tears falling down their proud faces as they wave their little MAGA flags. If Trump is feeling benign, he might let the Times continue to operate as Le Petit Journal filled with his propaganda of "Work, Family and Fatherland;" but more than likely given Trump's obsession with revenge, another of his deficiencies I guess, he'll most likely shut the "Great Gray Lady" down and send its employees to Trump Re-Education Relocation Camp/Gulag. Mr. Kahn, if we're sent to the same Camp/Gulag, I'll be sure to stop by and say "Hi." Perhaps you can regale me about how fair and balanced you were with your coverage of the election.

S.W. in New York City, NY, writes: There is a convicted felon who lied for 90 minutes at a 90-minute debate and The New York Times wants Joe Biden to drop out of the race? Are they (expletive) kidding me?

M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: Somebody fixed The New York Times' opinion piece. Because after all, if an old guy should drop out of the race for having a bad debate, shouldn't the other guy drop out after 34 felony convictions?

Politics—The Debate: Joe Must Go

M.F. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I agree with your analysis that, at the moment, it doesn't appear Joe Biden is seriously entertaining stepping aside. I strongly disagree with your later analysis that suggests maybe he's right to stay the course.

Considering all the factors, it seems most likely that Biden's floor is the same as about any generic Democrat. Those who are going to vote with defeating Trump as their primary motivation will continue to do so, just as Trump's ardent supporters are likewise baked into any predictions.

Unfortunately, the marginal voters on both far left and center, as well as the double haters, just saw one of Donald Trump's primary lines of attack against Biden confirmed before their eyes on live TV. Whether or not that's fair is immaterial; as you noted yourselves, the narratives to come out of the debate are likely to marinate and stick. It is utterly unconvincing to argue that because other debate bounces were temporary this will be as well. This isn't just any poor performance. This confirms a major Republican talking point, so much so that many Democrats and independents now believe it to be true as well.

Looking at other candidates, they share Biden's floor but their ceilings are higher simply by virtue of not being Biden. The head-to-head numbers of other candidates, and even their approval ratings, are almost a textbook example of "soft numbers" when it comes to national polling (i.e., numbers that don't mean much because they are subject to significant potential for change). This is true even of Kamala Harris as most voters who don't pay close, daily attention to politics are likely unfamiliar with her, to the point that some may not even know her name.

I can't see how any reasonable, coldly considered risk/reward analysis concludes anything but changing candidates to be the better option, whether through allowing Harris to serve 3-4 months as an incumbent, or opening it up to the convention process. The "defeat Trump" voters aren't going anywhere in any scenario, meaning we're talking about the odds of both winning the marginal voters, and getting them to care enough to show up. That's a harder sell for Biden than it was 72 hours ago, and that's unlikely to change. For a new candidate able to define themselves for the country, that hurdle is much more manageable.

P.T. in Jackson, MS, writes: Unlike you, apparently, most Americans remember pre-2024 Joe Biden. Some have also witnessed loved ones experience age-related mental and physical decline. Watch a video of Biden in the 2012 campaign. Just watch it. He's declining. It will continue. It will be worse in October. Father time always wins.

Biden is showing himself to be merely a different flavor of a narcissist octogenarian than Trump. It's RBG all over again, but worse. He'll lose in a landslide. God help us.

(V) & (Z) respond: Note that we have never argued that there has been no age-related decline on the part of Biden. In fact, we have written many times that, when a person enters their seventh and eighth decades, some decline (or, at least, some change) is all-but-inevitable. What we object to are all the self-appointed experts who feel free to diagnose Biden with dementia and other conditions. Not only does the evidence not support these "diagnoses," but it's disrespectful to people who have had to watch a friend or family member suffer with these conditions.

R.C. in Eagleville, PA, writes: Joe Biden saved America from Donald Trump by running for president, he can save America again by not running. Imagine the Oval Office speech ending his campaign, it would be epic. He would immediately be elevated from president to hero, an American Obi-Wan Kenobi.

P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA, writes: President Biden has served our country faithfully, honorably, and well. But I believe it is now time for him to turn over the reins to a younger generation. They are clamoring for change. The rest of the country, though sympathizing with the realities of aging that come for us all, is too anxious about his health and too terrified of another miserable 4 years with Trump to overlook Biden's frailty. My son, who's 39, mentioned after the debate that people in the Democratic party are calling for Biden to let go. I've always defended Biden and my answer was, "And who would replace him on the ticket?" But now I see that, actually, that's what conventions are for. This is how our democracy works. I also happen to believe that a Newsom-Whitmer ticket would win handily and unite all the Democrats. I hope Biden's speechwriters provide him a gracious, inspiring speech that also warns the country, just as Cicero warned Rome against Catiline, of the dangers of Trump ever again being in the Oval Office.

Politics—The Debate: Joe Must Stay

A.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: Earlier this week I was invited to Joe Biden's Friday Raleigh rally event.

On Thursday night, I was able to watch much of the debate in our break room at the hospital in between seeing patients. I missed chunks of it, but I saw enough to be as deflated as anybody else. I was bummed enough about it that I was tempted to sleep in Friday morning and skip the rally, but (I think correctly) had come to the same conclusion that we aren't going to be switching presidential candidates midstream and it'd be the right thing to try to show up and support the president in his reelection bid.

After a brief nap, I went to fairgrounds and sat in a staging area for a few hours alongside hundreds of other Biden supporters (the reports were that there were 2,000 attendees—that seems like a pretty good guess based upon what I saw). I didn't hear a single conversation about the debate, although I'm sure many of the attendees watched it, and I'm very sure it was on a lot of people's minds. However, I did see basically everyone near me reading post-debate coverage on their phones at some point or other.

I ended up being placed directly behind the stage and lectern in the mosh pit below the stands. You can kinda see my forehead at times on the CNN video that was posted of the rally. The event had stump speeches from our attorney general Josh Stein (running for governor) and our governor Roy Cooper, before Joe Biden came out to speak.

He was a totally different person in terms of energy. He was forceful and passionate and smiled. He seemed to be enjoying himself and interacted with the audience, which was a definite change from the prior night. Jill had come up on stage with him and they exchanged a kiss or two. I was going to be voting for him anyways, but this did reassure me quite a bit:

Sure, he is definitely frail. He walks with a little shuffle and watching him in the flesh makes me worry more that he may someday trip and break a hip. I'm less than confident that he will be healthy through the end of his second term in office in January 2029. Maybe if he had opted to step aside, or there had been a more robust primary, then this wouldn't be the situation. But it is what it is, and I will take Joe Biden over the guy who attempted to forcefully retain power and overturn our democratic elections any day of the week.

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I tend to agree with the Clintons and Obama that Biden is still a better choice than Donald Trump. I didn't see the debate myself, but even if Biden is 10x worse than what everybody says, he's still not the one who tried to overthrow the government when he lost. Also, I'm not convinced Trump is a better bet for holding on to whatever marbles might still be in play with him, and I absolutely trust the Democrats to handle a situation of a dementia-ridden POTUS better than the GOP would. And even if neither cabinet had the fortitude to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and we needed to rely on a presidential spouse to hold things together Wilson-style I'd very much prefer Dr. Jill over Melania.

I live in Wyoming. If it weren't for the fact that Wyoming has committed to selecting presidential electors based on the popular vote and Congress has specified that whoever is chosen as electors have to meet in December to cast their votes, you could fill out all the certificates and whatever other paperwork and send it all off to the National Archives now. Trump is going to carry the state, by a lot, and there's not really anything the people of Wyoming are likely to do to change that. So for me, I could vote third party, not show up at all, vote for Biden, or write in myself on my ballot and all will have equal chances of changing the outcome (almost, but not quite, nil). But I'm still going to do what I can to defeat Trump, for all the reasons I give above, because I learned a long time ago, that you never know when it's going to be close, and the only wasted vote is the one that is not cast.

E.K. in Brignoles, France, writes: Like many of you, I've had a lot to process in the last 48 hours. On Thursday night, when President Biden entered the CNN stage, with his hesitant gait, I knew something painful was coming. Well, I didn't know it would be THAT painful. I was watching my TV, almost 23 years ago, when the planes destroyed the World Trade Center and Manhattan seemed to have been swallowed by an impenetrable cloud of death. Forgive me for the comparison, but I had the same feeling when I saw President Biden staring the void, aghast and barely comprehensible. Because on the shoulders of this man stood the fate of the Western civilization. I've always thought that it was a terrible idea to debate Trump. It's an impossible task. And it's even more impossible if you're tired and, as (Z) pointed out, if the whole world is scrutinizing your slightest hesitation while you're supposed to save the planet from the claws of a psychopath.

I wept. Sometimes I could barely watch my TV. Then I couldn't sleep. And I thought of the end of Chinatown, when John Huston tells Jack Nicholson: "Not worth it, Mister Gittes. Really not worth it..." I wondered: "What's the point, after all?" Joe Biden can't save the world from itself. And Donald Trump could shoot someone right in the middle of Central Park, and he would find a way to raise $50M the next day. That's the way it is: The bad guys win.

I was helpless. But then the reactions from everywhere just minutes later made me absolutely furious. Yes, Joe Biden is old. And yes, this debate was devastating. But we just don't "dump" people like some kind of garbage. Especially people who've dedicated their whole life to public service, have always tried to be decent, to do the right thing and, as POTUS, have a record they can be proud of. It would be useless to "analyze" the flood of stupidity that's been unleashed on the social media. It's business as usual. But what kind of world do we live in to write such scathing op-eds, whose substance can be summarize in three words: "Go away now"?

Joe Biden is a good man, who deserves at least some respect. I think he's earned it. A vigorous man in his thirties can sometimes be exhausted. It happens. It's just human. If someone can beat the sound, the fury and the madness, it's Joe Biden. No one else can. He's done it before. Just don't ask him the impossible. He's had a terrible, awful, nightmarish night, yes, but it's absolutely disrespectful to trample someone like him. I like elderly people, as a general rule. And the media treatment President Biden is going through is unacceptable.

Sometimes the good guys must win. There is no choice. And everyone must rally around these good guys. It's easy to support someone when everything is going fine. The hard part comes when that person is going through a rough patch—trust me, I've learned it the hard way.

Everything must be done to save our civilization from the religious nationalists, climate-change denialists and conspiracy theorists. And everybody must rally around Joe Biden, the only decent, rational, competent human being in this race. Because "it's worth it. Really worth it."

M.J.M. in Lexington, KY, writes: I'm not sure Joe Biden can hold the Biden coalition together, but I'm absolutely sure that if he is replaced by anyone other than Kamala Harris, it won't hold together.

P.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: The people who want a change are not thinking it through. If anyone besides Kamala Harris is chosen to replace Biden this year, they will be utterly destroyed by Black women voters. The consistently best Democratic votes would be up in arms over anyone else (and I don't disagree with them, since it will show we used Harris to get their vote in 2020).

Having said that, I also think that Harris would get destroyed as well. She has shown she is not a good campaigner (being one of the first to drop out in the 2020 primaries).

There is on choice other than Biden. I think he has done a great job but is too old to be president. But the only option is to beat Trump at all costs!

T.B. in Winston-Salem, NC, writes: The only way for Donald Trump to win the presidential election would be for the DNC, its "superdelegates," and the donor class to pick a candidate other than the one to whom real voters handed the nomination. Although they did this much earlier in the process (before the end of 2014, at least), that's how the DNC absolutely assured that the Electoral College went to Trump in 2016. Serious voters who are critical thinkers will realize that it's "Trump vs Biden" again this year, and if Biden does step aside prior to November, well... dictators have no problem governing, even from prison. Against Trump, there is no other candidate who can avert the MAGA danger.

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Biden did not deliver as we hoped but in the end, the debate changed nothing—it's still "old" vs. "convicted felon and pathological liar who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.: I'll take old every day and twice on Sundays.

And it's not just old; the way forward is still to remind voters of their different records. One has a criminal record and the other a presidential one of accomplishments for the country. And as one reader noted, if you have a uterus, there's only one option.

It always astounds me how quickly the Democrats turn on their own. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies and faces federal criminal charges in two other cases, one of which involves the Jan. 6 insurrection. And yet, not only have there been no calls from media pundits or anyone within the GOP for Trump to step aside, we've seen exactly the opposite. A parade of Republicans made the trek to the court where Trump was being tried to pledge their fealty to him and call the trial a "sham" and slam our justice system. Right-wing judges are falling over themselves to assist him to fend off the federal criminal case until after the election. The media is also doing its part: The headlines are not whether Trump is electable but whether the conviction and indictments will even hurt him with voters. This is insane.

The Democrats' constant carping about Biden needs to stop. There is no one else who is going to ride in on a white horse at the 11th hour and pull off a miracle victory. Biden should not step aside. If the Democrats dump Biden now and select a different candidate, it only makes them look weak and fickle, playing right into Republicans' narrative. And who would that candidate be exactly? Gavin Newsom? The slick-haired, smooth-talking guy from California? Right. Biden beat Trump because he's a regular guy from Scranton. Gretchen Whitmer? Female governor from the Midwest who's untested on the national stage? You want to try that Hail Mary 5 months before the election? Biden beat Trump because he's a white guy that everyone knows and likes.

That's worth remembering as the Democrats contemplate replacing Biden: He's already beaten Trump. And the stakes are even higher now. Women voters will stick with Biden. The party should also. It's time to circle the wagons, stop whining and get to work.

M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, writes: A half-fit Joe Biden is better than an utterly unfit Donald Trump.

Politics—The Debate: Don't Forget about the Other Guy on Stage

S.L. in Glendora, CA, writes: First, I would like to thank you for calmly pointing out that both the numbers and the history tell us not to panic. Yet. I think a lot of us needed to be talked down off the ledge. My sister has been calling random people begging us to run for president. If she had your numbers, she would have called both of you.

I hate the way that Democrats always freak out, both the leaders of the party and the voters. Republicans sit by while their party is overtaken by a narcissistic pathological liar who has proven that he is incapable of leading an elementary school council meeting, much less an entire country. Trump could have literally lit himself on fire, and Republicans would have gushed about how pretty the flames were. Joe Biden has taken a country and an administration that Trump had left in shambles, and put things back together so well that our economy is the envy of the world. But a bad debate performance? He needs to drop out of the race!

So I'm grateful to the Philadelphia Inquirer for this editorial pointing out that it is Trump, not Biden, who needs to drop out of the race. It's a great editorial, and I'm angry that there aren't more voices in the media making the same point. I'm also angry that more Democratic leaders aren't presenting a united front in support of Biden. They should be calling for Trump to drop out, not wringing their hands and opening fretting about Biden's competency.

M.K. in Sacramento, CA, writes: For those folks protesting our Mideast involvement and Biden's actions/policies, I hope you managed to hear what The Former Guy said in the debate between his word salad answers and stream of lies. It was a quick one-liner, but if I heard correctly, TFG said "I would have let the Israelis finish the job." You can interpret that in several ways, but for those of you sympathetic to the Palestinian cause who have advocated for sitting out the election or not voting for Biden, you may want to think carefully about what life would be like with TFG back in office. I'd suggest it would be magnitudes worse for the Gazans, not to mention the West Bank. Biden at least hears the protests; TFG won't give a damn.

M.S. in Knoxville, TN, writes: Trump told 30,000 lies when he was president, and seemed like he was trying to beat that record in one debate.

One of the most disgusting parts was when Biden said Trump slept with a porn star and lied about it, and Trump just grinned like, "Damn right I slept with a porn star." And then proceeded to lie about it.

Perhaps the most absurd was when Trump tried to suggest he wanted to control the January 6 riots but Nancy Pelosi blocked him.

Trump remains the biggest danger to America and the world as we know it.

Politics—The Debate: The Format

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Who will ever forget watching the President of the United States of America, the leader of the Free World, explaining how he lowered his golf handicap from 8 to 6, during the time that he served as Vice President of the United States, to a convicted felon and ex-President, during a national debate?

The "debate" made me sick. The moderators and the candidates presented the best imaginable argument for losing faith in our country, our government, our leaders, our organs of public information. To think that we've been worried about AI, the Russians, the Chinese, social media...

M.J.B in Chicago, IL, writes: My thought is that CNN let Joe Biden down. The time plan was 2-1-1, with the moderators having a minute, which Biden and his team might have anticipated to have for fact-checking, which was minimal and unassertive. It quickly became clear that fact-checking would be minimal, which would be disconcerting when that commitment wasn't met. I was disappointed for Biden, but not with him.

D.S. in Davis, CA, writes: I propose that when confronted with a dishonest debate partner such as Trump, there are only two honest responses:

Give up on the debate and make your own rules, matching soundbite for soundbite, the inauthentic sputum with equally inauthentic but hopefully contrasting material. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is what the mainstream media is clamoring for. On some level, perhaps we all want such a forceful and simple repudiation of chaos that we can pretend it doesn't exist. But reality unfortunately is often tedious and boring and just feeds the other side.

Express confusion and shock at the Chaos.

It seems to me that, rightly or wrongly, Biden chose #2. It wasn't pretty. It didn't give any sound bites... at least none that I saw in the coverage of the event. But the stills of shocked and confused Biden accurately capture my feelings every time Trump opens his mouth. I don't see confusion, in those circumstances, as a bug. It's the most honest response possible, and far better than not responding at all and tacitly agreeing that the other side is making sense.

I wish there was someone to vote for other than Biden in the fall. But there isn't. The choice isn't Biden or Trump. It's Biden or Chaos. And I do not think there is anything either side can do to change that.

T.C.W. in Arlington, vA, writes: (Z)'s post after the debate made the point that Biden came into the debate with the intent to upload numerous facts, figures, and numbers to counter Trump and provide to the American people. What a horrible strategy. I am less inclined to believe that Biden has an acuity problem and more inclined to believe that he was overloaded with information a law or medical student would have a hard time remembering. Combine the illness, his natural stuttering, and a bad strategy and one has Thursday night. The bad strategy resulted in Biden bringing a knife to a gunfight. Those numbers and facts are designed to defend the administration's record. Defending the administration's record with facts and figures is pointless against Trump, a habitual liar.

Biden needs to just always be on the attack. He would have done well to simply state Trump was a liar every time the mic was his. I blame this more on Biden's staff. The election needs to be about Trump. Americans stopped caring about policy years ago. This is especially true of the swing voter who is a probably low information voter anyway. Forget numbers about job creation—simply attack, attack, attack. Currently, Biden's campaign is committing political malfeasance. The sad thing is I am not confident another Democratic candidate would do better. The last one who really went after opponents and described matters in a way voters understood was Bill Clinton. Obama wised up halfway through his 2012 campaign with Romney and went on the attack, casting Romney as out of touch with normal Americans. It was an 11th hour step that saved that campaign. Democrats are not good at this and want to talk policy which, if that's the discussion, is a sure path to a second Trump presidency.

Politics—The Debate: What Was Wrong with Biden?

D.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: You wrote: "We are not trying to excuse Biden's performance. We are trying ... to reconcile Thursday night Biden with Friday morning Biden. The difference is stark enough that it's tough to do."

It's not that difficult. Thursday was a debate, and Friday was a rehearsed speech. Anyone who has been raised in a theater environment will tell you that it's far easier to be in a scripted play than it is to do improv. When you know your lines, they flow like muscle memory, and Biden, with his history of stuttering, no doubt rehearses his speeches more than most.

The most disturbing thing about Biden's performance on Thursday was not that he got tongue-tied. It was his demonstrable inability to think on his feet and communicate his point in real time and the devastating errors that resulted. The most grievous, highlighted by Jon Stewart in his analysis, was when Bidenhe took a question about abortion, by far his strongest issue, and pivoted his response to immigration, Trump's strongest issue (despite the flagrant lies). A strategic blunder of that magnitude can't be ascribed to a stutter.

If Biden's performance Thursday night was indeed an anomaly and not indicative of general mental decline, then he won't prove it by giving rehearsed stump speeches. The only way for him to prove that he can evaluate and respond to questions and crises as a leader should be able to is channeling his inner John McCain and doing a series of town hall meetings in swing states, taking questions from undecided voters (wherever they still exist) and demonstrating his ability to engage with them.

Only in an unscripted environment such as a town hall or a press conference will he truly prove his cognitive mettle and put concerns about Thursday's performance to bed. It remains worrying how few he has done over the past 4 years.

(V) & (Z) respond: You're right, he had a teleprompter for the event in Raleigh, and that explains a fair bit. That said, someone who is suffering from actual dementia cannot fake mental competence just by having notes available.

P.H. in Jersey City NJ, writes: I am a neurologist (albeit a pediatric neurologist) in practice for 26 years, as well as a lifelong Democrat.

Joe Biden appears to have Parkinson's disease. Features include a stiff gait, slow movement, a mask-like facial expression, decreased blinking, trouble controlling secretions, and a soft voice. This opinion is shared by my adult neurologist colleagues who saw the debate.

My guess is that he knows it and is secretly being treated for the condition. Medication can be quite effective early in the illness. Perhaps something went wrong with his dosing, or the stress of the debate overcame drugs' effectiveness. How else to explain what happened?

Regardless, and even if I am wrong, Biden is clearly not in a good place medically, and his condition is going to worsen. He needs to be replaced, period.

A.D. in Vass, NC, writes: I only tuned in to the closing statements of the debate, where I saw the President struggling with his stammer to a vastly greater degree than I had ever seen before. It looked to me as though that struggle was taking so much of his attention he wasn't able to compose and deliver his answers.

I have experienced something very similar. I don't have a speech impediment, but I do have autism. And I teach high school science (mainly chemistry), so I have a debate-like need to constantly take complicated content and frame, package, and deliver it according to the needs of the moment. But a huge chunk of my attention, cognition, and energy must always be applied to interacting socially with my students—something that I understand neurotypical folks can do without the same effort. Just as Joe Biden needs to devote mental resources to forming and pronouncing words.

If something lays me low, like repeated bouts with COVID, well, I still must function socially, and there's just not enough cognitive capacity left over to be able to make complicated science accessible. I felt I saw something similar on the debate stage. Whether from dextromethorphan or something else, the President didn't have enough juice to control the speech impediment and simultaneously frame his responses correctly for the invisible audience.

B.B. in Buda, TX, writes: One thing didn't occur to me until this afternoon that I should have thought of much earlier given my 30+ years in health care and certification as an advanced practice nurse (ACNS-BC). If President Biden had some kind of respiratory infection, he probably had confusion along with it. Older people (and, at 81, President Biden counts as "older") usually don't run a fever when they have an infection. Instead, they get confusion. This fact is so well established that when an older person shows confusion it's pretty standard procedure to get a chest x-ray and urine and blood cultures to check for infection.

And it's not at all surprising that once the infection is resolved or improving the person would show rapid return to normal cognition.

I'm really surprised this hasn't been more widely spoken of or explained.

D.K. in Oceanside, CA, writes: At my age I have seen many people on pain medication trying to collect their thoughts. Biden's slightly vacant look was very familiar to me. My first thought was that someone slipped something in his water. I still think that's in the realm of possibility, but I really would prefer to think, like (Z), that it was cold medication. It was most certainly not dementia. You do not recover from dementia in one day and make the speech he made in Raleigh.

M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, writes: Like you, as the immediate explanation of "he has a cold" went out for his raspy voice, the pharmacist part of me wondered if he or someone else unwisely had him take an antihistamine prior to going onstage, perhaps to stop any sniffling or sneezing or needing to blow his nose, thinking that any of those would make a bad image. A large number of antihistamines can cause drowsiness and mind fog, and seeing how extremely vigorous he was just 12 or so hours later, this still sticks in my mind as one explanation. This might also explain why he got better, if he took something earlier in the evening and it began to wear off. On the other hand, I would have expected someone to put this out there as the reason for a poor performance if true, unless the powers that be don't know he took anything or don't realize that it could have been the cause.

Politics—The Debate: Historical Analogues (Candidate Debates Edition)

D.E. in Atlanta, GA, writes: "It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I've ever seen by a sitting President."

"But a gray, morose man does not an appealing candidate make."

"Where was the president tonight? He was not properly prepared for this tonight..."

Yes, it was a terrible debate night... for Barack Obama. In fact, leave it to former president Obama to point this out from his first debate performance against now-Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) in 2012.

Are the optics and circumstances different now? Of course. Romney wasn't/isn't a fascist bent on revenge against his enemies and Obama didn't have to contend with his age (wonkiness, yes). But, as usual, leave it to the Democratic Party to both piss and crap its pantaloons when things are not going well. Did President Biden perform badly? Yes. That isn't in question. Did Trump perform well? No. He told ridiculous lies and is not being held accountable. Instead, the questions are who can replace Biden at the convention. As I was writing this, your posting came out on Saturday, and the numbers, at least so far, don't show a difference beyond statistical noise. I am by no means an optimist, but those seem like pretty good results for someone that is a barely coherent drooling mess, at least according to members of the media and those Democrats who enjoy saying they knew Biden was always "gone".

P.H. in Mayo, FL, writes: People asking for a swap-out on the democratic presidential candidate need to learn (or re-learn) one thing (with a modernization): You don't change horses mid-stream. (or, modern-day, you don't change gears mid-stream).

List of presidential candidates who flopped on the first debate in a series of debates who went on to win the presidential election:

1980: Reagan vs. Carter
1992: G.H.W. Bush vs. Clinton
2000: G.W. Bush vs. Gore
2012: Romney vs. Obama

Since 1969, when Biden was first a public defender (like my older brother, Brian, was for native Australians for 40 years), he has selflessly served the People. My grandmother was 92 when she won the state bridge championships with her playing partner, and my Father was in his nineties still driving. Age? See Buffet, Warren. 12 years+ more senior than Uncle Joe, and still going strong.

M.F. in Burlington, ON, Canada, writes: There's no doubt Biden performed poorly on Thursday. Granted, Trump also lied and rambled and evaded. But Trump always lies and rambles and evades, so that's already baked in.

But as we consider the impact of Biden's clusterburragh, I'm reminded of another disastrous political debate from about 27 years ago.

Those familiar with Canada's political history will recall that the 1993 federal election shattered the three-part coalition that had kept the Progressive Conservatives in power for nearly a decade. Under their shiny new leader Kim Campbell, were reduced to two seats—and Prime Minister Campbell's wasn't either of them.

Outside of Quebec (and particularly in western Canada) the Progressive Conservatives (think traditional Republicans) had been largely replaced by the upstart Reform Party (think MAGA Republicans). With the conservative movement split, the separatist Bloc Québécois irrelevant outside Quebec, and the leftist New Democratic Party (think Sanders/AOC progressives) in disarray, the Liberal Party (think establishment Democrats) under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien (a better Joe Biden analogue is hard to imagine) assumed they would romp to another massive victory.

At least that's what they thought until the night of the first debate. A weak performance from Chrétien, combined with a better than expected performance from Reform leader Preston Manning (think Speaker Mike Johnson with slightly more personality and a squeaky voice) caused panic in the Liberal war room, and a lot of online chatter about how Manning was manifestly the man of the moment.

And that lasted until there was actual data.

A few days later, the polling did show that Chrétien had underperformed and Manning had exceeded expectations. However, neither of those things significantly moved the needle. Likewise now, while panic stations were widely invoked on Thursday night, the needle hasn't moved significantly at all.

The immediate aftermath of a battle is rarely the best time to assess its strategic importance.

R.C. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: As a resident of the swing state of Pennsylvania, Thursday's debate immediately reminded me of a very similar situation just 2 years ago in a more regional, but still nationally-consequential, election.

The Democrat running to replace Republican senator Pat Toomey had a stroke after he had already won the primary. He was hospitalized and left struggling to express himself. Members of the media questioned his mental capacity to serve, and Republican politicians expressed their overly performant "concern."

At the only debate of the season, John Fetterman seemed to confirm everyone's fears. He had difficulty completing a coherent sentence. His Republican opponent, a celebrity doctor with major name recognition, was smooth and collected. Mehmet Oz ran circles around Fetterman and told some whoppers, which Fetterman was unable to respond to. I remember reading all the tweets declaring that the Democrats had just lost the Senate.

Things didn't turn out that way: John Fetterman went on to win, and he won big for a purple state. Oz may have been widely declared the winner of the debate, but to everyone parsing his actual words, he was shallow. He mostly complained about the sorry state of the country while dodging difficult questions with vague platitudes. Fetterman, as incoherent as he was, clearly tried to answer with facts and a plan.

This may just be how Pennsylvanians watch debates and assess someone's poor performance. But as the state that helped gave Trump his win in 2016 and his loss in 2020, it may be relevant.

Politics—The Debate: How Are Voters Responding?

R.O. in Albany, NY, writes: For the first time in my life, I hoped to vote FOR a candidate as opposed to voting AGAINST the other candidate. The debate may have moved me from the for column to the against column, but it is still for Biden.

L.B. in Savannah, GA, writes: With all the calls for Biden to step down, I'm not hearing anyone say that Thursday night has caused them to change their mind and vote for Trump instead. In fact, I haven't even heard anyone say they know someone who plans to switch their vote from Biden to Trump. Biden's "electability" depends on this shadowy group of undecided voters that no one knows, but we all imagine that they're out there even though we don't have any indication of what they want. Granted, there are low-information voters who will make their decision in the polling booth based on how they feel that day. But if there was anyone out there supporting Biden because they either approve of the Democratic platform or they just hate Trump, the debate is going to have very little effect on that.

Maybe I'm wrong and there exists a large group of moderates who can't decide between the two and might be swayed by Biden's performance, but if that's the case, something else could just as easily tip them in the opposite direction. I hope whatever decision Biden makes is based on solid data and not an existential threat from a group of voters that may not even exist.

K.M. in Olympia, WA, writes: I didn't watch the debate: It wasn't going to change my mind and watching TFG bloviate doesn't help my blood pressure. Then, seeing the initial media take got me a bit worried, but on reflection I've come to the conclusion that like the primary debates, the presidential debates don't matter anymore. Anyone who pays attention to politics already has their candidate, and the undecideds and double-haters weren't paying attention. They'll decide at the last minute for wonky, personal reasons and either way it will end up being a close election. I still think it'll be Biden for a second term, but the Bible-thumpers and WASPs won't be giving up anytime soon trying to take the country back 50, 75, or 100 years.

A.A. in Austin, TX, writes: You cited Heather Cox Richardson, but you missed my favorite takeaway from her column on Thursday: "About the effect of tonight's events, former Republican operative Stuart Stevens warned: 'Don't day trade politics. It's a sucker's game. A guy from Queens out on bail bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade, said in public he didn't have sex with a porn star, defended tax cuts for billionaires, defended Jan. 6th. and called America the worst country in the world. That guy isn't going to win this race.'"

"Don't day trade politics." Words for the wise.

I want to give you a grassroots take from salt-of-the-earth Texas Democratic voters. I'm in a Facebook group of 62,000+ (mostly) women who are trying desperately to get this state to turn purple. They are not necessarily involved in Party activities. They are not particularly politically savvy; one of my recent posts was explaining how a candidate could win the popular vote and still lose. They are on a sharp learning curve, but they are dedicated, energetic, and creative. The response after the debate was amazing. There were some who were on the "get a new candidate" train, but they were a tiny fraction, and were quickly put down by others. Biden's North Carolina speech was posted almost as soon as it was available. As one of the elders in the group, I had planned on having to soothe some skittish nerves and calm some fears, but that bunch did not need me at all; they are committed to Joe, and Joe it is. The idea of the other guy is just too daunting. I think we're going to be just fine.

P.R. in Los Altos, CA, writes: My closest friend watched the debate live and says that he and all of his friends are so despondent that they do not want to vote now. The juxtaposition of how a Republican voter reacts to The Orange Turd's repulsive behavior and fascist political positions and how Democrats react to Joe Biden's personal behavior is just astounding. The Democratic hand-wringers are no better than the Republican cult members. What an interesting era this will be for future grad students to study.

T.C. in Stone Mountain, GA, writes: Biden's performance in the debate has depressed us all. We cannot allow that to make us stop fighting. Even if the presidency and the Senate are now lost, that just means we must fight all the harder to win back the House and every governor, state house seat, and state senate seat we can. What's done is done and instead of tearing ourselves apart in recriminations, we need to fight together for everything we can get. We survived 4 years of a Trump presidency before, and we can do it again. It may be a cliché, but when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

R.M. in Ocala, FL, writes: Polls say that 60% of voters want Biden to step aside, and yet when asked who they will vote for the split is still dead even: 45%-44%. This may seem like a contradiction, but I am one of those people. I think the country would be better served with a younger, more charismatic candidate. But if Biden stays on, I will still vote for him. This tells me that this election, in spite of Thursday night's catastrophic debate, is still about Trump, not Biden. The Trumpers will vote for Trump no matter what, but his ceiling remains about 45%. The anti-Trumpers will still vote for the alternative no matter what. But I think there is a slightly higher ceiling there. It is, as you have pointed out repeatedly in the past, the 10% of fence-sitters who will decide this election. The debate will almost certainly have an effect on them, which is why I think that Biden really hurt himself Thursday night. The fence-sitters consist mostly of people who are either double-haters or so low information that they honestly do not know what they will decide. I sincerely doubt there are many people who look at Biden and Trump and say, "Hm, I wonder which one will be better for the country?"

So it is entirely possible that Biden will survive this debacle. He could even still win, especially if he makes more public appearances like Friday's and shows up for the second debate on his game. Voters have notoriously short memories and even shorter attention spans. It will take some clever and creative politicking from Democrats (who have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory) but it is doable. Replacing Biden is a tactic of desperation that may not be called for and might not even work. With so much at stake and given the risks involved, Democrats will be wise to proceed cautiously. Let the dust settle and watch the polls. It will be clearer in a month than it is today what needs to be done.

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: While I watched the presidential debate with a combination of horror at Biden's under-the-weather appearance, my 30-year-old daughter sit down and literally watched Trump and Biden for the first time (talk about a low information voter). Like most young adults, she openly rebels against taking her parents' opinions as gospel. On top of that, various friends have exposed her to a wide variety of political opinions and she has noticed that Trumpers have distinctly different views than I do.

In 90 minutes, the debate accomplished what 3 years of my loudly expressed opinions failed to accomplish. She will never vote for Trump or anyone who supports him. She immediately recognized that Trump avoided answering most of the questions and diverted his responses into short campaign speeches that had nothing to do with the question, or else whining about how mistreated he is by the "deep state" (anyone who disagrees with him, particularly experts he disagrees with). She desperately wanted to hear answers from Trump, but watched him continually twist his responses into non-answers. She recognized that Biden seemed off-balance, but also that most of the time Biden attempted to answer the questions or address Trump's lies and exaggerations with facts. Between Trump's slippery dodging of the monitor's questions and his overbearing ego, Trump lost one young voter forever.

R.M. in Strong City, KS, writes: You wrote: "Again, once a few weeks have passed, maybe this will all seem like an overreaction. But we wouldn't want to bet big money on that."

I'll take that bet!

I can't shake the feeling that, as the days pass, popularity for Biden will increase.

I'm seeing a lot of sympathy for him after reading thousand of comments across the media. And he's raised $14M in the 48 hours after the debate vs. Trump's $8M. This is from the Biden website: "The campaign said the 11 p.m. to midnight hour, one hour after Thursday's debate, was the single best hour of fundraising since the campaign's launch in April 2023."

Biden also did himself a world of good Friday, with his rally speech and Stonewall speech. It's not possible to watch either while thinking: "He's done."

I'm also reading scorn for Trump. "He lied the whole night!" So, in a weird way, the debate might help Biden.

I like the wisdom in this comment I found online: "Biden was the initial focus because his performance was so shocking and unexpected. But as that shock wears off every aspect of the debate will be scrutinized and it is probably better for Trump's consistent fire hose of lies to be the final thing that is looked at—long after Joe's poor performance is a faded memory."

(V) & (Z) respond: Looks like you would have already won that bet, and the weekend isn't even over.

J.K. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I have followed your site since the early 2000s. I have been a registered Democrat virtually all of my life (almost age 70 now). I voted for a Republican presidential candidate once—for Reagan's second term—and still regret it. That said, after watching how feeble and lost Joe Biden was last night, it pains me to say I won't be voting for him this fall. I can't vote for tRump. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is out of the question. None of these men are fit to run our government for the next four years.

So I am in a quandary, and I am sure I am not alone. I don't care about the party line that a non-vote is a vote for tRump. If that is a concern, give me a candidate that I can vote for. There is a full bench of talent under the Democratic tent. The Democratic Party needs to find a way to prevent this train wreck. If Biden won't go without a fight, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment should be invoked. The spin isn't working; I can't be convinced my eyes and ears were lying to me. If they don't give me someone I can vote for... I won't vote. I reject this option.

S.K. in Atlanta, GA, writes: I just had a phone conversation with my cousin in Houston who is a lifelong Republican (and, incidentally, close friend of Dan Crenshaw R-TX) who expressed his complete disappointment in both candidates following the debate. Despite being a Republican, he recognizes that Trump is a liar and not particularly intelligent, but will still vote for him over Biden because of Biden's display of being completely incapable of being in the presidency. What I found more interesting was that he said that if the Democrats replaced Biden with a younger, energetic candidate, he would almost definitely vote for the Democrats for the first time in his life. I guarantee there are millions of people like him all over the country. If Biden resigns and is replaced, I would only be asking how much of a landslide it will be in November. It's complete political malpractice if he stays on the ticket and hands this election to Trump.

F.I. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: After the debate, I can't help but feel that nothing really changed. People will continue thinking that Biden is old and that Trump is a crook and liar. Opinions on the two candidates are so baked in at this point. As bad as hearing people say "Biden seems old" is, hearing Trump constantly spew lies on national TV is only going to serve as a reminder to voters of how dangerous Trump is.

The American people have short memories—Trump's felony criminal sentencing is coming up in two weeks, and that'll dominate the news while the debate will be in the rearview mirror. Don't forget that Democrats have "won" or over-performed every election since 2016.

Biden's my guy and it's unfortunate that he had an off night. But stuff happens in life and it's ultimately up to you to decide how you want to respond. I continue to be hopeful and rather than focus on hypothetical polls that are coming out the first week of summer with 15-20% "undecided voters" and a bunch of third-party candidates (some of which have barely any ballot access). I instead look back at previous election results and remember how toxic Trump and Trumpism are as a brand. I don't see a situation where massive amounts of "undecided" voters break for Trump and his brand of politics, no matter the perception of how elderly Biden may seem. I ask my fellow Democrats to please take a step back and relax—November is still a long way away.

Politics—The Debate: Next Steps for the Democrats

S.R. in Paradise, CA, writes: With the almost universal hand wringing and pearl clutching from Democrats regarding Joe Biden's debate performance, I think it would be best for all to take a deep cleaning breath and consider the reality before us.

Donald Trump will continue to be Donald Trump. He will say stuff that will make peoples head spin. ("Black jobs") He will soon announce his VP selection, which will undoubtedly supply late night comedy with weeks of material. He will be sentenced for crimes committed. Bottom line, he will not have one bad night; he will have several bad months.

Remember, this is Trump we're talking about.

A.L. in Osaka, Japan, writes: Yet another "what should the Democrats do now" letter. In short:

Own the problem. Apologize to your supporters for not recognizing the problem earlier. Have a plan for moving forward. Don't paper it over with stadium events where you act "super energetic."

Framing is important. Frame the race as the "Diddly Old Senior" (again see point 1 about owning it) vs. "The Con Artist."

Broaden your circle of friends. Define the presidency as a team and bring about people who are behind the scenes. Have them do interviews and make them a part of the campaign.

Stop with the attacks on Trump. It sounds too schoolyardish. Anyway, we all get it. We need to have a reason to vote Democratic. No one knows those reasons yet.

Tell Democrats to keep their heads up. Biden had a bad day but it was a presentation issue. Trump had a bad day too, but they were fundamental issues that reflect his character. His team will never change. They will put their flaws on T-shirts and use it to raise money. Democrats reflect and evolve.

This is coming from someone who has never won a race but I hope if we can keep our heads up we can turn things around. Ultimately Biden is just one person and what we believe isn't centered around a central authoritarian figure. We need to stick our oar in the water if we want America to get out of this mess.

D.M. in Spring, TX, writes: One question posed is "Can Biden recover from his debate performance?" He could quite easily recover. Trump has already provided the template. Unfortunately, I don't believe Democrats or Biden are willing to go there. If they were, here's the answer.

On Monday, Biden announces that he is going to issue an Executive Order to increase the Supreme Court size to 13. Or better yet, he actually issues said Executive Order. Furthermore, he announces that he will immediately nominate the 4 new justices.

Of course, it will eventually be struck down. But if he actually issues it, it will take time in the courts. Even if he doesn't issue an actual order, he will own the news cycle for something other than his debate performance.

The following Monday, he does the same, except this is an Executive Order to reinstate Roe vs. Wade. Hey, the Supreme Court did it by fiat, why not the President? It will eventually be struck down, but that's not the point. The point is to flood the bandwidth of the news with controversial items. Preferably items that a majority of Americans support.

In subsequent weeks, he issues Executive Orders that address immigration, rescind Citizens United, create gun restrictions, investigate Congress people for their roles in 1/6, etc., etc.

Again, I don't believe Democrats or Biden would ever go there. But if they flooded all news cycles with controversial news, especially news that makes MAGAs' blood boil, the debate would be long forgotten.

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Remember in Star Wars, when Luke first interacts with the droids, R2-D2 and C-3PO? There is a hologram message that appears from R2-D2 that went "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope." Well, I hope someone can send R2-D2 to Taylor Swift with the same message: "You are our only hope."

I cannot think of one thing that could change this race for the better for President Biden more than a full endorsement from Swift. Not the kind of endorsement she did in 2020, where she posted a pic of her on Twitter in a kitchen showing sugar cookies with the Biden Harris 2020 logo in icing. We need a couple-minute video endorsement and then her showing up at a campaign event(s). Her endorsement would do three things: raise money, register voters, get more people to polls.

I truly don't think there is any other way this race changes drastically for the better for Biden unless Taylor Swift gets involved.

J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: If Biden stays in, he has to get the message out that "the economy is doing very well and getting better. Eventually, it will help all Americans, even those who are still hurting. Elect Trump and not only will that interrupt the ongoing recovery, it will reverse it." In other words, he must do what every candidate must do: deliver the simple message of "vote for the other guy and things will get worse; vote for me and things will get better."

It's a looooong time before the election. Given Trump's age, poor diet, and stress levels, he could evidence a serious medical issue that is impossible to hide. If he were to pass out at a rally or stumble and fall or start talking truly incoherently or freeze like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did, any such moment would erase Biden's debate performance from people's minds. There's a lot of time for big things to happen.

J.P. in Brookline, MA, writes: If Joe Biden is determined to stay in the race no matter what, Kamala Harris should be replaced on the ticket with the likes of Gretchen Whitmer, J.B. Pritzker, Gavin Newsom or Wes Moore—ASAP.

Gallimaufry

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "Occasionally, maybe one lecture in 20, you'll absolutely hit it out of the park. And occasionally, again maybe one lecture in 20, you'll drop the ball badly."

So you're saying Biden just rolled a natural 1 on his d20 debate skill check? Sounds legit to this dungeon crawler.

L.L. in Coos Bay, OR, writes: Will President Biden stay in the race? I sure hope so, as I have ordered a Biden "Dark" t-shirt and would look pretty silly wearing it if someone else is the candidate.

M.T. in Oceanside, CA, writes: Thank you for Saturday's post. Your thoughtful analysis helped me put things in perspective. This sums the whole thing up nicely:

S.O. in Madison, WI, writes: To fill in the blank in the sentence you proposed:

"Now that I have seen Biden's decline, I guess I will have to vote for Trump, because at least Trump is still crazy after all these years."

Final Words

J.P. in Joshua Tree, CA, writes: The (correct version of the) famous words of Mark Twain seem particularly appropriate this week: "The report of my death was an exaggeration."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

Today's Presidential Polls

Michigan swings. It will probably continue to swing until November.

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Michigan	45%	49%	Jun 21	Jun 26	EPIC-MRA

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers