Taylor Swift is now the most influential celebrity in America. Her popularity is staggering, and her position as a cultural colossus is unquestionable.
At 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless, a fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model. But, I suggest, it’s crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift’s musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate. This might sound like pearl-clutching preaching, but it’s a concern rooted in sound reasoning.
Here’s that sound reasoning:
Swift’s highly publicized romantic life has been a source of prime tabloid fodder for years. She has dated numerous high-profile men—at least a dozen—including the singers Harry Styles and Joe Jonas, the actor Jake Gyllenhaal, and, more recently, the American football player Travis Kelce. This revolving door of relationships may reflect the normal dating experiences of many young women in today’s world, but it also raises questions about stability, commitment, and even love itself. Should we encourage young girls to see the “Swift standard” as the norm, something to aspire to? Or should we be promoting something a little more, shall we say, wholesome? Would any loving parent reading this want their daughter to date 12 different men in the span of just a few years? This is not an attack on Swift; it’s a valid question that is worth asking.
The superstar’s vocal criticisms of the patriarchy add another layer of complexity. Swift’s recent rallying cry against patriarchal structures stands in stark contrast to her personal dating choices. The singer often dates strong, influential men—celebrities who embody significant social and economic power. This can appear hypocritical. Hypocrisy fundamentally undermines the ability to be a good role model because it involves a contradiction between one’s actions and the principles or values they publicly advocate. Swift either doesn’t realize this or doesn’t care. Neither of the two is a good look.
I’m just going to leave that here for you to contemplate.
BURGUM: Donald Trump at the end of his term left the White House. We had a smooth transition.
WELKER: January 6 wasn't exactly a smooth transition.
BURGUM: Well, I think we have to say there was a smooth transition … I've been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship. pic.twitter.com/FMjDdbGSYz
The “Biden is a basket case but also Joseph Stalin” line is more unsustainable than ever. But I guess they’re still rolling with it. Also, the transition was anything but smooth. Even aside from the obvious — the coup attempt and insurrection —they wouldn’t hold meetings for the new team to prepare, Trump refused the normal courtesy of meeting the Biden’s at the White house and he churlishly refused to attend the inauguration, It was a shitshow from beginning to end.
The relatively muted response from Republicans in the wake of the debate is curious and very unlike them. Dancing on graves is their favorite pastime. Maybe they’re thrown off by the Democrats’ hysterics and don’t yet know how to respond? I suppose it’s possible they’re following the old “when your opponent is destroying himself, let him” but that would be unusual too. Piling on is their second favorite pastime. Weird.
We got some Dear Leader tweets from Steven Miller early on but he’s just been doing his standard grotesque immigrant bashing the last day or so.
Trump put out this whine yesterday:
Poor Trumpie. Nobody’s paying attention to him right now. They’re saying Biden did poorly instead of acknowledging that he’s the bestest and the biggest and the greatest debater who ever lived. Somebody bring him a diet coke and a binky.
Honestly, I have no idea what’s going through their heads but if I had to guess they just don’t know whether to root for Biden to step down or stay in so they’re paralyzed.
U.S. Navy SEAL qualification training (SQT) students fire their M4A1 carbines from the prone position during a 36-round shooting test. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Michelle Kapica/Release
The New York Times has a devastating article about a pattern of brain injury in soldiers that’s gone unrecognized for years. “Shell shock” is a colloquial term not used these days. PTSD has replaced it. Ironically, the original term could be more accurate.
The story examines a pattern of suicides among elite combat troops, Navy SEALs, some of whom have never been injured (gifted article):
The military readily acknowledges that traumatic brain injury is the most common injury from recent conflicts. But it is struggling to understand how many of those injuries are inflicted by the shock waves unleashed by troops’ own triggers.
[…]
People’s brains can often compensate until injuries accumulate to a critical level, {Dr. Daniel Daneshvar, chief of brain injury rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School] said; then, “people kind of fall off a cliff.”
Examination during autopsy of SEALs’ brains after suicide have revealed microscopic damage invisible to MRIs and not seen among civilians.
Combat never seemed to faze Mr. Collins, but near the end of his Navy career, he started to change in subtle ways that Ms. Collins pieced together only in retrospect. He began to avoid social gatherings. He struggled to sleep. He started to make strange, obsessive family schedules and become irritated when they were not followed. Some simple chores, like raking leaves into a tarp, started to confound him. He would step out the door to go to work, realize that he had forgotten his keys, go back inside to get them and then forget why he had returned.
All were signs of brain injury. But at the time, the military generally associated brain injury with big blasts from roadside bombs — something Mr. Collins never experienced. No one was telling the troops that repeated exposure to routine blasts from their own weapons might be a risk.
Mr. Collins’s mental health took a sudden plunge when he was 45. He had left the Navy and started a civilian job teaching troops to operate small drones. One morning, well before the sun was up, he called his wife in a panic from a work trip, saying he had forgotten how to do his job and had not slept in four days.
Since I just posted about being an engineer, when I began reading the following section I knew where it was going before it got there:
Dr. Perl said privacy rules bar him from discussing specific cases, but members of the families who provided brains to study say the lab found interface astroglial scarring in six of the eight SEALs who died by suicide. The other two SEALs, including Lieutenant Metcalf, had a different type of damage in the same blast-affected areas. Star-shaped helper cells called astrocytes in their brains appeared to have been repeatedly injured and had grown into gargantuan, tangled masses that barely functioned. The lab plans to publish findings on the astrocyte injuries soon.
Recent studies suggest that damage is caused when energy waves surging through the brain bounce off tissue boundaries like an echo, and for a few fractions of a millisecond, create a vacuum that causes nearby liquid in the brain to explode into bubbles of vapor. Those tiny explosions are violent enough to blow brain cells apart in a process known as cavitation.
Firing thousands and thousands of rounds from rifles tucked next to their cheeks in training if not in actual combat have left these men scarred in ways only a microscope can reveal. But their spouse and families see it in their behavior.
The men who died by suicide represent only a small fraction of the career SEALs with signs of brain injuries after years around blasts.
Now what? Energy weapons?
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.
Bryan Schott covers politics for the Salt Lake Tribune.
The James Fallows tweet Digby cited about SCOTUS overturning the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine was an eye-opener. The SCOTUS decision hands highly technical decisions about regulations to courts. Fallows was so succinct and instructive that I’m reposting him here:
A salesperson asked me on Tuesday what I did before retirement. I told him I reviewed the material stresses and reaction forces in high-temperature, high-pressure piping systems, pressure vessels, and rotating equipment for compliance with ASME codes (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) using finite element analysis. Which is why my cocktail party answer more often was, “I design factories.” In a more ironic mood, I’d reply, “Clients pay a lot of money to ignore what I tell them.”
Do my job poorly and expensive equipment gets damaged and millions of dollars in production are lost. Do the job badly and people might die.
Regulation decisions SCOTUS just put in the hands of judges are often conservative. Especially those regarding safety, like OSHA regulations. They are conservative for a reason, as Fallows points out.
In one maintenance accident at a site I worked, 600 °F molten polymer spewed from an “empty” pipe onto a worker who’d just removed his “hot work” gear to repair a pump. After the goop cooled, they had to chip his body off the concrete floor with a jackhammer. I’ll admit I was relieved that it wasn’t any system I’d reviewed.
I spent one fine morning at another site in a safety briefing on all the chemicals on site that might kill you. You always looked to the wind socks on the towers to see which way the wind was blowing so you could run in the other direction if the site evacuation siren went off. But here they warned that if you were up in the production structure when the siren went off and saw a green cloud below, “Don’t go down into the green cloud.” The end product was nontoxic powder used in paint pigment. It’s the “M” on your M&Ms.
ASME codes are private. But violate them at your legal peril. Or maybe not. SCOTUS just handed judges the authority to decide if government regulations saying you ought to comply with them are too restrictive. You know, because allowing government experts to interpret regulations they are tasked with administering is “fundamentally misguided,” says Chief Justice John Roberts. Ask him what he knows about finite element analysis.
Since it’s now officially summer, I thought it would be a good excuse to curate a list of my top 10 seasonal favorites; movies that I think capture the essence of these “lazy, hazy, crazy” days…infused with the sights, the sounds, the smells, of summer. So, here you go…as per usual, in alphabetical order:
Jazz on a Summer’s Day– Bert Stern’s groundbreaking documentary about the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival is not so much a “concert film” as it is a fascinating and colorful time capsule of late 50s American life. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of gorgeously filmed numbers spotlighting the artistry of Thelonius Monk, Anita O’Day, Dinah Washington, Louis Armstrong, etc. and the performances are outstanding.
The effect is like “being there” in 1958 Newport on a languid summer’s day. If you’ve ever attended an outdoor music festival, you know half the fun is people-watching, and Stern obliges. Stern breaks with film making conventions of the era; this is the genesis of the cinema verite music documentary, which wouldn’t come to full flower until a decade later with films like Don’t Look Back, Monterey Pop, Woodstock and Gimme Shelter.
Last Summer– This underrated 1969 gem is from the husband-and-wife film making team of director Frank Perry and writer Eleanor Perry (who adapted from Evan Hunter’s novel). On the surface, it’s a character study about three friends on the cusp of adulthood (Bruce Davison, Barbara Hershey and Richard Thomas) who develop a Jules and Jim-style relationship during an idyllic summer vacation on Fire Island. When a socially awkward stranger (Catherine Burns) bumbles into this simmering cauldron of raging hormones and burgeoning sexuality, it blows the lid off the pressure cooker, leading to unexpected twists. Think Summer of ’42 meets Lord of the Flies; I’ll leave it there. Beautifully acted and directed. In 2022, Davison and Thomas appeared in Season 4 of the Netflix series Ozark (although they didn’t share any scenes).
Mid-August Lunch– This slice-of-life charmer from Italy, set during the mid-August Italian public holiday known as Ferragosto, was written and directed by Gianni Di Gregorio (who also co-scripted the 2009 gangster drama Gomorra).
Di Gregorio casts himself as Giovanni, an easy-going middle-aged bachelor living in Rome with his elderly mother. He doesn’t work, because as he tells a friend, taking care of mama is his “job”.
One day, his landlord drops in. He wants to take a weekend excursion with his mistress and asks for a “small” favor. In exchange for forgiveness on back rent, he requests Giovanni take a house guest for the weekend-his elderly mother. Giovanni agrees, but is chagrined when the landlord turns up with two little old ladies (he hadn’t mentioned his aunt). Soon after, Giovanni’s doctor makes a house call; in lieu of a service charge he asks Giovanni if he doesn’t mind taking on his dear old mama as well (Ferragosto is a popular “getaway” holiday in Italy).
It’s the small moments that make this film such a delight. Giovanni reading Dumas aloud to his mother, until she quietly nods off in her chair. Two friends, sitting in the midday sun, enjoying white wine and watching the world go by. In a scene that reminded me of a classic sequence in Fellini’s Roma, Giovanni and his pal glide us through the streets of Rome on a sunny motorcycle ride. This mid-August lunch might offer you a limited menu, but you’ll find every morsel worth savoring.
Mommy is at the Hairdresser’s- Set at the beginning of an idyllic Quebec summer, circa 1966, Lea Pool’s beautifully photographed drama centers around the suburban Gauvin family. A teenager (Marianne Fortier) and her little brothers are thrilled that school’s out for summer. Their loving parents appear to be the ideal couple; Mom (Celine Bonnier) is a TV journalist and Dad (Laurent Lucas) is a medical microbiologist. A marital infidelity precipitates a separation, leaving the kids in the care of their well-meaning but now titular father, and young Elise finds herself the de facto head of the family. This is a perfect film about an imperfect family; a bittersweet paean to the endless summers of childhood lost.
Smiles of a Summer Night– “Lighthearted romp” and “Ingmar Bergman” are not normally synonymous, but it applies to this wise, drolly amusing morality tale from the director whose name is synonymous with somber dramas. Bergman regular Gunnar Bjornstrand heads a fine ensemble, as an amorous middle-aged attorney with a young wife (whose “virtue” remains intact) and a free-spirited mistress, who juggles a few lovers herself. As you may guess, this leads to amusing complications.
Love in all its guises is represented by a bevy of richly drawn characters, who converge in a third act set on a sultry summer’s eve at a country estate (the inspiration for Woody Allen’s A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy). Fast-paced, literate, and sensuous, it has a muted cry here and a whisper there of that patented Bergman “darkness”, but compared to most of his oeuvre, this one is a veritable screwball comedy.
Stand By Me– Director Rob Reiner was on a roll in the mid-to late 80s, delivering five exceptional films, book-ended by This is Spinal Tap in 1984 and When Harry Met Sally in 1989. This 1986 dramedy was in the middle of the cycle. Based on a Stephen King novella (adapted by Raynold Gideon and Bruce A. Evans) it’s a bittersweet “end of summer” tale about four pals (Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Jerry O’Connell) who embark on a search for the body of a missing teenager, during the course of which they learn hard life lessons. Reiner coaxes extraordinary performances from the young leads, and Richard Dreyfus provides the narration.
Summer Wars– Don’t be misled by the cartoon title of Mamoru Hosoda’s eye-popping movie-this could be the Gone with the Wind of Japanese anime. OK…that’s a tad hyperbolic. But it does have drama, romance, comedy, and war-centering around a summer gathering at a bucolic family estate. Tokyo Story meets War Games? At any rate, it’s one of the finer animes of recent years. While some narrative devices in Satoko Ohuder’s screenplay will feel familiar to anime fans (particularly the “cyber-punk” elements), it’s the humanist touches and subtle social observations (reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu’s films) that makes it unique and worthwhile.
A Summer’s Tale– It’s nearly 8 minutes into Eric Rohmer’s romantic comedy before anyone utters a word; and it’s a man calling a waitress over to order a chocolate crepe. But not to worry, because things are about to get much more interesting.
In fact, our young man, an introverted maths grad named Gaspar (Melvil Poupaud), who is killing time in sunny Dinard until his “sort of” girlfriend arrives to join him on summer holiday, will soon find himself in a dizzying girl whirl. It begins when he meets bubbly and outgoing Margo (Amanda Langlet) an ethnologist major who is spending her summer break waitressing at her aunt’s seaside creperie. Margo is also (sort of) spoken for, with a boyfriend (currently overseas). A friendship blooms. But will they stay “just friends”?
Originally released in France in 1996, this film (which didn’t make its official U.S. debut until 2014) rates among the late director’s best work (strongly recalling Pauline at the Beach, which starred a then teenage Langlet, who is wonderful here as the charming Margo).
In a way, this is a textbook “Rohmer film”, which I define as “a movie where the characters spend more screen time dissecting the complexities of male-female relationships than actually experiencing them”. Don’t despair; it won’t (as Gene Hackman’s character in Night Moves states regarding a Rohmer film) be akin to “watching paint dry”. Even a neophyte will glean the director’s ongoing influence (particularly if you’ve seen Once,When Harry Met Sally, or Richard Linklater’s “Before” trilogy).
Tempest– “Show me the magic.” Nothing says “idyllic” like a Mediterranean getaway, which provides the backdrop for Paul Mazursky’s seriocomic 1982 update of Shakespeare’s classic play.
His Prospero is a harried Manhattan architect (John Cassavetes) who spontaneously quits his firm, abandons his wife (Gena Rowlands), packs up his teen daughter (Molly Ringwald) and retreats to a Greek island for an open-ended sabbatical. He soon adds a young lover (Susan Sarandon) and a Man Friday (Raul Julia) to his entourage. But will this idyll inevitably be steamrolled by the adage: “Wherever you go…there you are”?
The pacing lags a little bit on occasion, but superb performances, gorgeous scenery and bits of inspired lunacy (like a choreographed number featuring Julia and his sheep dancing to “New York, New York”) make up for it.
3 Women– If Robert Altman’s haunting 1977 character study plays like a languid, sun-baked California fever dream…it’s because it was (the late director claimed that the story came to him in his sleep). What ended up on the screen not only represents Altman’s best, but one of the best American art films of the 1970s.
The women are Millie (Shelly Duvall), a chatty physical therapist, considered a needy bore by everyone except her childlike roommate/co-worker Pinky (Sissy Spacek), who worships the ground she walks on, and enigmatic Willie (Janice Rule), a pregnant artist who only paints anthropomorphic lizard figures (empty swimming pools as her canvas). As the three personas slowly merge (bolstered by fearless performances from the three leads), there’s little doubt that Millie, Pinky and Willie hail from the land of Wynken, Blynken and Nod.
Aileen Cannon will be deciding whether your 747 is safe to fly
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that district court judges are more qualified to decide complex matters of science and technology than government experts. Here’s the result:
Just think of all the health and safety rules we count on to keep us safe. Then think about all the unqualified MAGA weirdos Trump put on the courts and the bitter, angry Supreme Court majority that really seems to believe that it’s every man for himself.
The kind of polling we need more of: @YouGov asked respondents about major policies proposed by Biden and Trump…without specifying which candidate proposed them. Turns out, in a blind test, Biden’s agenda is way more popular. today.yougov.com/politics/artic…
27 of 28 Biden proposals are supported by more people than oppose them. 24 get outright majority support.
Most popular: criminal/mental health background checks for all gun purchases (82% approve). Least popular (the only one underwater, 30%): 10-yr military support for Ukraine
Trump’s agenda doesn’t fare so well. 9 of 28 proposals are above water (more support than oppose). Just 6 get majority support Even most most popular (phase out Chinese imports of essential goods) gets meager 59%. Least pop (prez controls independent regulatory agencies): 19%
People who plan to vote for each candidate are more likely to support most of their preferred candidate’s policies. And most supporters oppose many of the policies proposed by the opposing candidate. There are some policies that supporters find common ground on, however. For example, majorities of Biden and Trump supporters favor Biden’s policy pledging U.S. military support to Taiwan if China were to invade. And few supporters of either candidate support giving Trump control of regulatory agencies that now are independent. Under half (47%) of Americans say Biden has given a very/somewhat clear idea of policies he’d enact if re-elected. More (62%) say this of Trump Based on above stats, vs broader views of which candidate is trusted more on various issues, I’m skeptical voters are clear on either.
This is a failure of media coverage. We need less horserace, more information on what candidates would do if granted a 2nd term — and how those policy intentions do (or don’t) align with voters’ preferences.
Following up on my post below I thought I’d post this excerpt from Dan Pfeiffer’s newletter. His analysis is similar to mine. He too thinks that a brokered convention is way too risky and that the “Biden endorses Harris with the full support of the Democratic establishment” scenario is the only alternative to the wounded Biden soldiering on. He writes:
There are two possible scenarios. The first is that Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee, and the party coalesces around her. She would have to pick a Vice Presidential nominee and be ratified as the nominee by the delegates at the convention. That vote would be pro forma and drama-free. The race against Trump would start immediately. She would possibly get an opportunity to debate Trump at the scheduled debate in September.
The other scenario is the circus sideshow of a brokered convention which would be very risky.
Pfeiffer then discusses what Biden can do to right the ship if he decides to stay in:
Acknowledge the Obvious:In the immediate aftermath of the debate, some Biden aides and supporters dismissed the concerns from the Democratic Party as if they were simply more examples of people underestimating President Biden. That’s a mistake. People can’t ignore what is obvious to everyone. It’s better to acknowledge it like President Biden did in his rally when he said:I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to. But I know what I know. I know how to tell the truth. I know how to do this job.People appreciate honesty.
Embrace the Underdog Status: For months now, Democrats have pushed back on every poll that shows Trump leading. The President himself has argued that polling is broken because it’s so hard to get people on the phone (He may be right!). Yes, this is a close, winnable race, but it’s clear that Trump has the upper hand. We can debate how significant the advantage is, but all of us must act as if we are behind and have a hell of a lot of work to do to win.Biden’s campaign team is top-notch and they have been smart and aggressive. However, aside from his now ill-fated decision to seek out an early debate, Biden , himself, has largely been running as if he is in the lead. I know he is busy as President, but his campaign schedule is light (Trump’s is lighter). The Biden digital team does innovative things, but his communications strategy has been somewhat risk averse. Pehaps the debate shows why that’s the case. Regardless, the President needs to be everywhere at once. They should seek out tough interviews, constant appearances and opportunities for virality. The only way to clean up this mess is to show everyone a different Biden. That only happens with a change in approach.
Make the Race Bigger than Biden v. Trump: We have limited data since the debate. However, in the FivethirtyEight/Ipsos poll, people who watched the debate thought Trump did better, but it didn’t move many votes. This dovetails with the anecdotal reports from various focus groups where voters were dismayed by Biden’s performance but didn’t choose Trump. Now, it’s worth noting that debate watchers are more likely to be partisans who made up their minds a long time ago and are therefore less likely to move based on one debate performance. What’s clear is that many voters are not excited about either of these candidates. Therefore, the best way to win is to make this election about more than Joe Biden and Donald Trump. We must raise the stakes. I recommend focusing on preserving freedom and defeating extremists who want to control every aspect of our lives. We need the votes of people who don’t love Biden and think he may be too old. Making their vote about something bigger than individual candidates is our best bet. Biden and Trump’s favorable ratings have been largely the same for years. We can’t convince most persuadable that Biden is great and Trump is even more terrible than we thought, but we can convince them that voting Biden is important to their lives and their country.
Demand a Second Debate: This is going to sound insane. Just writing it makes me want to puke but Biden should be demanding a second or even a third debate. Trump probably won’t agree, but it’s better to look like someone who wants another shot than someone who is afraid of a repeat performance. Ratings for that debate would be through the roof. Biden would be better… and probably much better. Obama cleaned up his first debate disaster with two subsequent strong performances. Biden needs the same opportunity. It’s risky though. If he and his team do not think he can perform in another debate or a series of tough interviews and press conferences, those calling him to step aside are right.
Boy, that last one is a real gut check. I disagree that Trump will duck more debates. I think he’ll be thrilled to do them every week. Pfeiffer may be right that Biden will almost certainly do better but man is it a risk. He was that terrible.
I suspect it would be smart to get Harris out there a lot more. If he doesn’t make it through a second term, which I think is now on everyone’s mind, she’ll be the one we’re all voting for this November as much as Biden.
Is it Party ID uber alles? It’s the most important thing, that’s for sure. We are living in a tribal era and the two tribes really don’t like each other. So maybe it doesn’t really matter who is on the ticket. It certainly doesn’t matter to me, not at this point. I will vote for the Democrat against Trump, no matter who it is because Trump and his MAGA movement are fascist and they must be stopped.
As anyone who’s read me over the years knows, I don’t “love” politicians. I may like one or the other more or have a feeling about their symbolic value but as much as I might feel for them as human beings, as politicians I see them as instruments to achieve political goals. My number one goal right now is to beat Trump. And while I see Biden as having been a very good president, way beyond my expectations, I’m fine with him dropping out for someone else if that’s the best way to beat Trump. I’m also fine with keeping him on the ticket if the party ID factor remains the most important criteria because replacement carries its own risks. When you look at that chart above, if it’s true, it may not matter all that much who it is.
It’s very late in the cycle and it would be a cataclysmic upheaval which makes it unpredictable. One of the big risks is that the Democratic coalition will fracture under the pressure. It wouldn’t be the first time (see:1968.) Never assume that it won’t happen. Democrats love to fight each other much more than they like to fight the opposition. It’s just how they roll.
For reasons I have never understood there seems to be a real hostility toward Kamala Harris, almost at the level of Hillary Clinton loathing. She’s too ambitious, too arrogant, all the usual. That opinion seems to not just be rooted in the usual antipathy toward women in power but also her race which makes it even more fraught. But the fact is that factions in the Democratic base, particularly it’s most loyal constituency of Black women, will not take kindly to her being usurped.
And you can’t blame them. After all, she’s the current VP and had the ancient mariner shuffled off his mortal coil at any point in the last four years she would be the president today. We all knew that when we voted in 2020 and Biden’s age was a top concern then too. Any regrets now are probably too late. If Biden’s out I think Harris has to be in and that seems to bother the people who are calling for Biden to abdicate almost as much as Biden’s debate performance. None of them have anything close to a clear idea about who the alternative should be which just shows how risky this whole thing actually is.
The talk of a “brokered convention” with smoke filled rooms and floor fights is not only unrealistic it’s destructive. The main argument against MAGA is that they are chaos agents. So let’s stage a massive circus sideshow two months before the election proving that the Democrats are just as undisciplined. It would be a huge mistake.
I feel quite confident that If Biden drops out he will almost certainly endorse his VP and the rest of the establishment will go along. That’s fine with me. So if you want him gone you’d better make your peace with Harris or sign on for a new Trump term.
But I have no idea whether that’s going to happen. This is a very fluid situation. I just wish the pundits and operatives who are all wringing their hands in public would take a step back and let the dust settle a bit before having hysterical fits over this. It’s unnerving to watch and it’s making everything worse. If you want to know why a lot of people think Democrats are weak, acting like a bunch of panicked old ladies at the first sign of trouble is one of the reasons.
As for the NY Times editorial board calling for Biden to step down . Please. Last month Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in Manhattan, their home town, and they didn’t call for him to step down. They need to shut their pie holes. They have no credibility at this point.
Like everyone else, I was shocked by Biden’s performance and am terrified that it will outweigh the fact that Trump is a psychopath. I’m just waiting to see how the public perceived it and whether or not it’s a deal breaker with those all important undecided voters in three swing states. The next week are two are going to be very rough.
