#electoral implications

[trendynewsnow]

The Potential Consequences of a Trump Presidency on American Democracy

Potential Implications of a Trump Presidency As the upcoming presidential election appears to be a tight race, one cannot help but contemplate the potential ramifications for American democracy and the global landscape if Donald Trump were to reclaim the presidency. While some may sensationalize the situation—such as Hillary Clinton’s assertion that a Trump victory would signify “the end of our…

[izzymalec]

i cannot stress enough how much this isn't about you

u think eurovision is a competition between european countries but it's a actually a competition between the jury and the people

[qqueenofhades]

I feel like it's important to point out that in the last few days alone, in the middle of the ongoing flap about How Old He Is, Biden has announced two MAJOR pieces of progressive legislation/priorities for his second term: a) major SCOTUS reform, term limits for SCOTUS justices, a constitutional amendment nullifying the "president god-king" ruling, and b) legislation to cap/stabilize rent costs nationwide and financially punish landlords who raise their tenant's rent by more than a certain percentage (the news I saw had it as no more than 5%) in a year.

It is important to note that aside from these both being necessary and needed (the SCOTUS reform alone, holy shit) Biden's response to challenges to his candidacy is to go MORE left, not LESS. The conventional wisdom for 800 years has always been that Democrats Need To Go More Centrist, a mainstream and longterm Democrat like Biden has absolutely heard it over and over, and we have heard so much about how we need to court Republicans who are tired of Trump by being more conservative. Biden is not doing that. He is making the electoral gamble that the way to win is by going even more left, which would also have implications for his policy agenda in a second term, especially when he was freed of re-election concerns and could just go "fuck it."

Now we, and I cannot emphasize this enough, need to reward him for the move leftward and incentivize him to do it more. When you shout endlessly at politicians to be more left and then just bitch at them for not being even more left even when they move in that direction, you discourage them from doing so and make the hoary old Move To The Center narrative come back yet again. So:

[gurucave]

Trump Secures Victory in New Hampshire Primary, Posing Challenges for Rival Haley

The 2024 United States presidential election season is underway, and New Hampshire recently hosted its crucial primary, marking a pivotal moment in the race. In a swift announcement by the Associated Press, former President Donald Trump emerged as the Republican winner, further solidifying his dominance within the party. This article delves into the New Hampshire primary results, analyzing the…

[apas-95]

I think we need to acknowledge that most people who try to explain why electoralism is bad fail to actually... explain why electoralism is bad, because they don't ever actually mention class dictatorship, class characteristics, or even class at all, beyond vague gestures at it being the ultimate reason *why* 'the democrats and the republicans are both the same', but without actually delving into the *how*, or the implications of who stands to gain by what action. Just saying 'the democrats and republicans are both identical in terms of important policies like wars' does little to explain why you couldn't Push Them Left in the way an actual explanation of the basics of political power, ruling classes, and of playing 'good cop, bad cop' would.

[reasonsforhope]

Donald Trump charged in Georgia for efforts to overturn the 2020 election

Link here, because WaPo's security measures stop Tumblr previews. Non-paywall link here.

"Former president Donald Trump and 18 others were criminally charged in Georgia on Monday in connection with efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to an indictment made public late Monday night [on August 14, 2023].

Trump was charged with 13 counts, including violating the state’s racketeering act, soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree and conspiring to file false documents.

The Recap

The historic indictment, the fourth to implicate the former president, follows a 2½-year investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D). The probe was launched after audio leaked from a January 2021 phone call during which Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to question the validity of thousands of ballots, especially in the heavily Democratic Atlanta area, and said he wanted to “find” the votes to erase his 2020 loss in the state.

Willis’s investigation quickly expanded to other alleged efforts by Trumpor his supporters, including trying to thwart the electoral college process, harassing election workers, spreading false information about the voting process in Georgia and compromising election equipment in a rural county. Trump has long decried the Georgia investigation as a “political witch hunt,” defending his calls to Raffensperger and others as “perfect.”

The Details

“Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump,” the indictment states.

A total of 41 charges are brought against 19 defendants in the 98-page indictment. Not all face the same counts, but all have been charged with violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Willis said she has given those charged until Aug. 25 to surrender.

Among those charged are Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who served as Trump’s personal attorney after the election; Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; and several Trump advisers, including attorneys John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro...

Prosecutors brought charges around five subject areas: false statements by Trump allies, including Giuliani, to the Georgia legislature; the breach of voting data in Coffee County; calls Trump made to state officials, including Raffensperger, seeking to overturn Biden’s victory; the harassment of election workers; and the creation of a slate of alternate electors to undermine the legitimate vote. Those charged in the case were implicated in certain parts of what prosecutors presented as a larger enterprise to undermine the election."

-via The Washington Post, August 14, 2023

[rainybubbles]

COD men and civilian jobs

I was wondering for you, what would COD men do if they had a civilian job?

Please share your opinionnnn !!!

So :

-I imagine Soap as a firefighter or a sports coach; he loves people and craves the thrill of adrenaline.

-Gaz could be a teacher, emanating a calm aura, and I see him excelling with kids or teenagers. Alternatively, he might thrive as a doctor or surgeon in the ER due to his ability to handle stressful situations. (the question is what subject as a teacher ?)

-Ghost might be best suited as a mechanic or a cook. He possesses exceptional skills but dislikes client service or social interaction. With his preference for routine, a career as a cook suits him well.

-Price would excel as a history teacher, particularly at the university level. (I've seen so many fics about it, I love it each times) His passion for guiding and assisting others, leading them to achieve their Ph.D. or dreams, aligns perfectly with this role.

-Nikolai's fit is obvious—he'd make an excellent pilot, perhaps in Formula 1, or even a taxi driver.

-Alex's strong sense of justice suggests a career in the legal system, perhaps initially as a lawyer defending large corporations before realizing the ethical implications and shifting to advocate for the underprivileged, akin to Murdock.

-Farah's natural inclination toward defending people's rights makes her a perfect fit for a career in politics. She would thrive in electoral campaigns and fighting for social justice issues, embodying the qualities of a strong leader.

-Laswell also exudes political vibes, aligning with a similar career trajectory, or maybe an interpret.

-König seems suited to be a baker, I am possibly influenced by reading too much about bakeries featuring Konig. Additionally, baking often serves as a coping mechanism for anxiety, which could resonate with him. Imagining him in a quaint local bakery in a peaceful village feels fitting.

-Alejandro's need for action suggests a career as an MMA fighter or a police officer. (it sounds dumb, but it makes sense in my mind-)His inherent drive to confront challenges and conflicts makes him well-suited for such physically demanding roles.

-Rudy appears outwardly calm but harbors a fiery passion. He might have been an ex-athlete who suffered a severe injury, leading him to find solace in a quieter profession like being a librarian. This juxtaposition of calmness and inner fire aligns well with such a career path.

Tell me your opinion, I really want to write a "how you meet them" in this AU, so does it sound good for you or not ?

[dhaaruni]

Protest voting in safe states over Gaza (and other issues) gives a permission structure for swing state voters to not vote for Harris

The implication of protest voting is that people in safe states who vote for Harris are morally inferior since we're not electorally pure

I'm not telling people what to do, if you don't want to vote for Kamala Harris, that's your prerogative. But when Trump won in 2016, I was sad but felt zero guilt, and I can't say the same for the holier than thou left-of-center protest voters!

Take that how you will.

[lesbiskammerat]

weird question, but as that I know you don't like Stalin and you tend to be objective in your posts, I wanted to ask what's your opinion on him "killing the socialist movement world wide" or just "Stalinism" killing or setting back the movement

It's an oversimplification of history at best, and usually involves seeing the communist movement before him through rose-tinted glasses. There's a million criticisms to be made of Stalin and his administration more broadly, from understandable mistakes that we can easily spot with hindsight, to downright atrocious and terrible policy, and we should by no means shy away from them. But for many of them it's reductive, at least in terms of understanding the full scope of them and how to avoid similar things in the future, to lay them simply at the feet of Stalin himself or some smaller circle of bureaucrats like Beria. Not because we need to be nice to them or absolve them but because it often goes much deeper than them, implicating figures you might love like Lenin.

Trotskyists are infamously fond of this narrative (although their better analyses of course go deeper than Stalin simply corrupting the revolution with his evil and greed), but it rears its head with the lowest common denominator of basically every tendency under the sun. Fans of Mao might say Deng took the capitalist road and ignore Mao's own role, fans of Stalin will say it was Khrushchev but pretend not to see the connections to Stalin's own policy, and on it goes.

Besides this it also often just ends up turning into counterfactual history which is rarely useful. What if Stalin hadn't enabled conservative views and policy on women? What if the Comintern hadn't pursued electoralism for the sake of peace in western Europe? I don't know, a million things would have been different. So many individuals, groups, parties, countries, etc. would have reacted to those changes. It's not about what Stalin or the party should have done differently, or what the international movement should have done in response, it's about what we should do right now. Sometimes counterfactual history can help us get started thinking about those things, but that's about the limits of its usefulness politically.

[hotvintagepoll]

Hello when you say “propaganda” in the hot women poll what sort of thing should I put?

For the submission form, I'm looking for something I can put in the poll blurb that will really sell people on your hot lady if they don't already know her vibe. You can submit anything you want that feels right—here are a few rough ideas to get you started:

a description of what traits make her special ("i love her smokey deep voice!" "she's got this dynamo kill-a-man quality," "she's just so silly and fun!!")

talk about her career, politics, or stuff about her life, if you think that would sway people ("she protested against McCarthyism!" "she was an outspoken advocate during the AIDS crisis," "she was the first Black woman to ever win this Oscar!")

fun facts you think people should know ("she had 40 burmese mountain dogs!" "she liked knitting and fencing :)" "her pickled herring recipe was the talk of the town" "she turned down glup shittgrant's proposal! TWICE!")

just straight-up losing-it kicking-your-feet-twirling-your-hair giggling-behind-the-bleachers swooning ("SIT ON MY FACE." "hnnnggg pretty ladyyyy" "listen I see her and my brain turns OFF")

you could also include a link or two if she's better in motion! ("here's her dancing with fred astaire," "nothing i say will convince you like her iconic speech at 11:24 in this clip")

these are just ideas—anything that conveys her vibe and hotness to the electorate is welcome

If you need ideas, look through the old hot men posts—we have a good range there from "I think he murdered Natalie Wood but I like his eyes" to "[complete essay on a James Stewart character and the queer implications]." The more specific you can get with why your loved one is so hot, the better :)

[imsobadatnicknames2]

I think something that a lot of liberals completely fail to grasp (or that they're aware of but fail to grasp the implications) when arguing with anyone to their left is that the vast majority of leftists USED to be liberals.

It's not that the annarkiddie or tamkey you're arguing with has somehow managed to remain completely unaware and ignorant of the concept of incremental change, or has never stopped to consider the merits of electoralism, or is fundamentally too stupid and childish to understand the concept of The Lesser Evil. Chances are they used to believe the same things you believe right now (probably equally fervently) and used to make the exact same points you're making right now, and then they experienced, or read, or heard, or saw things that caused them to move away from those beliefs and made those points stop making sense to them.

And that means that you're presenting literally zero new information when you go "uhm well there's this thing called incremental change" like you're just taking someone and repeating back at them things that they used to believe and that they probably found a convincing reason to stop believing.

[ngdrb]

Why Donald Trump is Not the Right Choice for Our Future

In the lead-up to the upcoming election, it is crucial for American voters to reflect on the implications of their choices. A review of Donald Trump's rhetoric and actions reveals a troubling pattern that raises serious concerns about his suitability for the presidency. As we stand at a crossroads in our nation’s history, it is imperative to recognize why we must choose a leader who embodies the values and integrity we hold dear.

**1. Undermining Democracy:**

Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the foundations of our democracy, questioning the integrity of our electoral process and promoting baseless claims of widespread fraud. His actions have sown discord and mistrust among Americans, undermining the essential belief in fair elections that is vital for our democracy to thrive.

**2. Divisive Rhetoric:**

Throughout his tenure and campaign, Trump has employed language that exacerbates divisions among Americans. His comments often target marginalized communities, fueling hatred and intolerance. A true leader should unite, not divide, and instill a sense of shared purpose among all citizens, regardless of their background.

**3. Ignoring Global Responsibility:**

Trump’s approach to foreign policy has often been marked by isolationism and disregard for international alliances. His dismissal of climate change, withdrawal from global agreements, and strained relationships with key allies have jeopardized America's standing on the world stage. In a time of global challenges, we need a leader who understands the importance of collaboration and responsibility.

**4. Erosion of Trust:**

Integrity matters. Trump's history of misleading statements and unverified claims has eroded public trust in government. Americans deserve a leader who communicates honestly and transparently, fostering a healthy relationship between the government and its citizens.

**5. Economic Disparities:**

While Trump often touts economic growth, the reality is that his policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy, leaving many middle- and lower-class Americans struggling. A commitment to equitable economic policies is essential for a thriving nation, and we need a leader who prioritizes the welfare of all citizens, not just a select few.

**Conclusion:**

As the election approaches, it is vital for every American to consider the values and principles they wish to see reflected in their leadership. Donald Trump’s record speaks volumes about his ability to lead with integrity, compassion, and respect for all. We must choose a candidate who embodies unity, accountability, and a commitment to the greater good. Not the one who is trying to stay out of prison.

Let us stand together to build a future that reflects our highest ideals. Vote for a leader who will elevate our nation and inspire hope, not fear.

[mariacallous]

You’ve been asked to serve on the jury in the first-ever criminal prosecution of a United States president. What could possibly go wrong? The answer, of course, is everything.

A juror in former president Donald Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in New York was excused on Thursday after voicing fears that she could be identified based on biographical details that she had given in court. The dismissal of Juror 2 highlights the potential dangers of participating in one of the most politicized trials in US history, especially in an age of social media frenzies, a highly partisan electorate, and a glut of readily available personal information online.

Unlike jurors in federal cases, whose identities can be kept completely anonymous, New York law allows—and can require—the personal information of jurors and potential jurors to be divulged in court. Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing Trump’s prosecution in Manhattan, last month ordered that jurors’ names and addresses would be withheld. But he could not prevent potential jurors from providing biographical details about themselves during the jury selection process, and many did. Those details were then widely reported in the press, potentially subjecting jurors and potential jurors to harassment, intimidation, and threats—possibly by Trump himself. Merchan has since blocked reporters from publishing potential jurors’ employment details.

The doxing dangers that potential jurors face became apparent on Monday, day one of the proceedings. An update in a Washington Post liveblog about Trump’s trial revealed the Manhattan neighborhood where one potential juror lived, how long he’d lived there, how many children he has, and the name of his employer. Screenshots of the liveblog update quickly circulated on social media, as people warned that the man could be doxed, or have his identity revealed publicly against his will with the intent to cause harm, based solely on that information.

“It's quite alarming how much information someone skilled in OSINT could potentially gather based on just a few publicly available details about jurors or potential jurors,” says Bob Diachenko, cyber intelligence director at data-breach research organization Security Discovery and an expert in open source intelligence research.

Armed with basic personal details about jurors and certain tools and databases, “an OSINT researcher could potentially uncover a significant amount of personal information by cross-referencing all this together,” Diachenko says. “That's why it's crucial to consider the implications of publicly revealing jurors' personal information and take steps to protect their privacy during criminal trials.”

Even without special OSINT training, it can be trivial to uncover details about a juror’s life. To test the sensitivity of the information the Post published, WIRED used a common reporting tool to look up the man’s employer. From there, we were able to identify his name, home address, phone number, email address, his children’s and spouse’s identities, voter registration information, and more. The entire process took roughly two minutes. The Post added a clarification to its liveblog explaining that it now excludes the man’s personal details.

The ready availability of those details illustrates the challenges in informing the public about a highly newsworthy criminal case without interfering in the justice process, says Kathleen Bartzen Culver, the James E. Burgess Chair in Journalism Ethics and director of the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Simply because a notable figure is on trial does not mean that a juror automatically surrenders any claim to privacy,” Bartzen Culver says. “People who have been drawn into a case that is exceptionally newsworthy are not aware that a simple statement that they make about where they work might identify them and open them up to scrutiny and possibly risk.”

The dangers to jurors or potential jurors has only increased since the first day of jury selection, which remains ongoing, in part due to the challenges of prosecuting a former US president and the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 US presidential election. Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony in New York state, for payments made ahead of the 2016 presidential election related to alleged affairs with two women, adult performer Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal. Trump has claimed his prosecution is a “communist show trial” and a “witch hunt” and has pleaded not guilty.

On Fox News, coverage of Trump’s trial has repeatedly focused on the potential political motivations of the jurors, bolstering the former president’s claims. Trump, in turn, has repeated the claims by the conservative news network’s hosts. In a post on Truth Social on Wednesday, Trump quoted Fox News commentator Jesse Watters claiming on air that potential jurors in Trump’s trial are “undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get on the Trump jury.” This, despite a gag order that forbids Trump from “making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.”

Broader media coverage of the Trump trial jurors appears to often be the work of political reporters who are unfamiliar with the journalism ethics specific to covering a criminal trial, says UW-Madison’s Bartzen Culver. “It's like when political reporters covered Covid and science journalists lost their minds.” She adds that it’s important for any journalist covering a criminal case—Trump’s or otherwise—to “consider our role within the justice system.”

“Unethical behavior by journalists can delay trials. It can result in overturned convictions and the people having to go back and do a retrial,” Bartzen Culver says. “That all works against our system of justice.”

The New York case is one of four ongoing criminal proceedings against Trump. In Georgia, where he faces multiple felony charges for alleged attempts to interfere with the state’s electoral process in 2020, Trump supporters leaked the addresses of members of the grand jury, after their names were listed in the 98-page indictment against the former president, as required by state law. Georgia’s Fulton County Sheriff’s Office said last August that it was investigating threats against the jury members. The incident highlights the persistent dangers people can face from Trump’s supporters, both in the near term and for the rest of their lives, if they’re viewed as having acted against him.

The leaks were discovered by Advance Democracy Inc. (ADI), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and investigations organization founded by Daniel J. Jones, a former investigator for the FBI and the US Senate Intelligence Committee. So far, Jones tells WIRED, ADI has not uncovered attempts to dox jurors in Trump’s New York trial. But it’s still early days.

“We have not yet found identifying information on the extremist forums we monitor,” Jones says. “Having said that, I share your concern that it is only a matter of time before this happens.”

[redistrictgirl]

As of August 11th, 2024, the race for president is a dead heat.

Let's begin looking at my forecast by understanding what it represents. This map represents the median expected outcome of the presidential election - a slight win for Vice President Harris. The coloration of each state does not necessarily represent the expected margin - the less a candidate is believed to have an advantage and the more undecided voters there are in a state, the closer it moves to a lighter color. In short, the coloration represents the probability a candidate wins a state. With that foreword out of the way, let's look closer at some interesting states:

Arizona and Wisconsin are the two closest states, where Ms. Harris has a theoretical advantage. Really, these states are a coin toss. The good news for the Vice President is that polarization means that the outcome of each state isn't particularly independent, though they are different demographically, with white high school graduates and rural voters having more sway in WI and Hispanic and college-educated voters being more important in AZ.

Nevada isn't particularly important for Electoral College math outside of more fringe scenarios, but it's nice to have for downballot implications and a good temperature check for demographically-similar Arizona. Ms. Harris, then, will be pleased to have a slim edge in the state.

Pennsylvania, by contrast, is pivotal - if former president Trump wins the state, you can reasonably assume that he will win the Electoral College, given its high weight and modest resemblance to Wisconsin. However, Mr. Trump has fallen a good deal behind the Vice President in this state, with only about a one-in-three chance to carry the state. He is behind by a similar margin in Michigan, which is also demographically similar to Pennsylvania.

The South Atlantic states of North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida seem to be a bastion of strength for the former president. He has around a two-in-three chance of winning the former two and is a heavy favorite in the Sunshine State. Mr. Trump must sweep these states for the most straightforward path to the presidency.

Some fringe swing states include Minnesota, the New England states of Maine (at-large) and New Hampshire, and Virginia in Ms. Harris' column, and Texas, Iowa, Alaska(!!), and Maine's second congressional district in Mr. Trump's corner. If one of these polities flips in spite of only having 5-15% odds to do so, expect the candidate who snags it to be having a very good Election Night elsewhere.

Overall, this election is much, much closer than it was a month ago when it was a 2020 rematch. Vice President Harris has shown surprising strength in the Blue Wall and mounted a real comeback in the Southwest, but former President Trump has kept some momentum in the Southeast. In many ways, this map sticks closely to what I call the post-Dobbs coalition (for its applications in 2022), with less religious voters reverting back to the Democratic Party but minorities depolarizing in their place. This is bad news long-term for GOP aspirations, as it makes their gains very inefficient, primarily targeting safely blue states and heavily red states. It's quite the stark reversal from the early Trump era, and I'm curious to see whether that crystallizes throughout these three long, winding months.

[qqueenofhades]

There has GOT to be a way to dismantle this plan 2025 thing.....its freaking me the fuck out for all the reasons you've outlined but at this point it feels like people are SO disconnected from reality.....like grown adults around me are acting like they have a toddler's understanding of the economy, foreign affairs, etc. Im trying to gently challenge them and encourage them to actually read IN DETAIL the implications of all this stuff but its like. Ok the fascism....its in the room with us!!! I mean i suppose the main thing is to keep opposing it and trying to out-organize it for the next 10 yrs or so....wish the tech/journalism sector were more interested in preserving our sacred democracy!! Lol

Well, yeah. Of course there's a way to stop it: vote for Democrats en masse in 2024 and make sure the Republicans never have a chance to put it into action (at least for this electoral cycle, since they're not going to stop until they're beaten into the ground). So. Yeah. It's terrifying, but the task is clear and the same as it's always been.

And yes: I too have noticed the media going especially deranged in the last few weeks, going all-in on the Biden Old!! narrative, floating insane "Democrats need a competitive primary/Biden should step aside/replace Harris" utter BS, trying to make Hunter's minor gun charges into the BUT HER EEEEEMAILS of 2024, fellating Trump and giving him free air time, and otherwise doing their absolute best in service to their corporate paymasters to hand power back to the Republicans. (Does Biden recently announcing that he wants to implement a 25% minimum tax for billionaires have anything to do with it? One suspects it does.)

However, despite this flurry of mendacious bullshit, it is still over a year until the election, we don't know what's going to happen, Trump is still indicted on 91 felonies, and when it comes to actual elections, the Democrats continue to significantly overperform 2020 margins. So let's hope that despite the BS the media is doing its level best to flood into the information sphere, people are actually aware of the stakes of this election and how it is literally democracy or fascism. Some days I am more confident than others. So. We will see.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Michelangelo Signorile at The Signorile Report:

As I began to write this a few hours after the first debate between President Biden and Donald Trump, my social media feeds and text messages were blowing up with a bit of panic, as were Democrats and progressives on TV.

We’re hearing about calls to replace Biden on the ticket, coming from Democratic strategists, and about fear among donors and Democratic politicians. It’s safe to say most of us had a feeling of dread when Biden came on stage and was shaky and halting. His voice was hoarse (he reportedly had a cold). He was unfocused and confused. He allowed Trump to lie and lie and lie again, to even own the issues of abortion and January 6th—Biden’s issues!—and spin them around. The CNN moderators were terrible, doing no fact-checking and allowing Trump to refuse to answer most questions and continue attacking Biden. But that is baked in. We—and Biden—knew this kind of thing about the media going into it, and Biden is the one who wanted this debate. Biden rattled off numbers but sometimes got them wrong and tripped up on his words, stumbling into saying, “We beat Medicare.” He was not emotive but rather stiff and cold, offering a blank stare that seemed to show he was horrified and not comfortable. When he wasn’t doing that he was often looking down and not into the camera. It wasn’t the Biden who enjoyed—with a big smile—slamming down Marjorie Taylor Greene and Republicans at two consecutive State of the Union addresses. Later on, Biden came alive a bit more, and was more focused, particularly as Trump became a bit more meandering, pushing his lies. Biden flashed a rare smile or two, and he gave some cogent push back. But it was probably after a lot of people tuned out. Phones blew up, and by the end of the debate, many of us were asking, “What are we going to do?

Two hours later, I’d taken a few deep breaths. First off, Trump was a brazen liar as usual, and one hilarious, memorable moment will be his stating, “I didn’t have sex with a porn star.” Much worse than that, however, were the insulting lies that all Americans know are dangerous falsehoods. Trump claimed the narrative around Charlottesville—that he said there were “fine people on both sides,” which we all watched him do—was “a story that has been totally wiped out.” He claimed Nancy Pelosi’s own daughter vindicated him for the attack on the Capitol on January 6th and implicated her own mother was responsible. A complete and total fabrication.

It went on and on. We won’t know for a while what the outcome of this debate is for the electorate, but Trump, who began in a very cool and collected place (for him) became increasingly agitated and spewed lies. It didn’t seem to me to do anything to bring in swing voters or assuage those Nikki Haley voters. At the same time, Biden didn’t check him on the lies, and some of these were so easy—particularly on January 6th and abortion, which Trump claimed he’d done great things on by getting Roe overturned. So, yes, it was not great. Later, however, at a Biden debate watch party aired on TV, the president came onto the stage and gave some warm words to the crowd, a short speech in which he was lucid and connected, completely in the moment. It was a relief of sorts since it proved that the most distorted imaginings of the far right regarding Biden’s mental acuity and sharpness are not true—a fear that pulsed through us during the debate—and he surely was up to the job of running the country.

He just had a really bad night. Perhaps with a cold, and at 81, we’d all have a similar night. But we’re all not running for president, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

[...] Biden could give a speech in the coming days, not only showing he’s in the moment but also addressing what happened—and admitting it was a disaster and humbling. That would go a long way. President Obama did terribly in his first debate with Mitt Romney, and it happens with most incumbents in the first debate.

Michelangelo Signorile nails it with his post-debate recap: Biden had a bad start to the debate, and Trump didn’t do much to change the perception that he is an unhinged maniac.

See Also:

Daily Kos: Biden might be old, but Trump is an existential menace