This was one of my favorites regarding math'ing SCOTUS voting patterns. Everyone was wrong when it came to executive immunity, the most consequential case of this session (and surely one of the most consequential rulings ever). And the second most consequential case of the session, also 6-3, suggests that the politico piece quantified or interpreted "institutionalism" incorrectly, or that "institutionalism" takes a back seat to "conservativism" (whatever the fuck that means anymore, too) for the most important decisions. At this point, it'd be foolish to not conclude that the best model for thinking about SCOTUS is that it is currently the most activist extension of Trump's MAGA movement. It's making Project 2025 Project 2024. I should also say that folks like mk are not wrong, Biden's debate performance was a very troubling moment to behold. I tuned in to the debate after the first 30 minutes, and the remaining hour wasn't so bad. But obviously, the opening half hour is by far most crucial, and Biden botched it. Big time. Nor has Biden's response, or lack thereof, so far, been at all reassuring. But he's not like... permanently impaired or something. He had a bad opening stint of the debate. Happens. And now his polling numbers are like -4 since then. He deserves most of it. But color me skeptical that it's genuine concerns about Trump eking out a victory driving these breathless, nonstop critiques of Biden. It's obviously quite easy to absolve oneself of responsibility (note: Frum is being tongue-in-cheek here) hiding behind journalistic both-sidesism. The knives are fuckin' out, and we do actually disagree; It looks to me like the chin-stroking class runs DC. I think kowtowing to these pundits is a bad idea, not just because it would empower them further, but the amount of uncertainty it throws into the dem ticket will surely be further exploitable. And, again, Heritage Foundation is already looking into legal avenues to dispute any Biden replacement. Intentions aside, the "liberal" media is doing Trump's work for him. Bro I've listened to Trump nonsensically ramble into a battery vs. shark sinking boat dilemma story several times as proof that he is a genius, and: And that was before the debate. edit: This whole interview is lucid enough for me. Not perfect, but c'mon. edit2: Yikes. That is embarrassing, Olivia. edit3: membership's been cancelled for almost a year, now. At least some truth is still getting through
Here's NYT's opinion section right now: The first one is about how Biden is too old The second is about low legitimate! the supreme court really is The third is more about Biden's age The fourth is an honest to god pitch that Trump would be a better president because he is 1. not as old as biden and 2. more "doveish" towards Russia The screenshot is cut off here but everything else is about UK politics (fair) and seemed generally anti labor, calling the victory "hollow". Idk how to feel about that, I know nothing about england. Also, went again to double check and theres now a 4th! Biden is too old article. I think your first idea was correct. They are not both-sides-ing (which would suck too). They are actively trying to get Trump elected, for reasons I truly do not understand.
I've never seen such overwhelming disgust towards establishment media like what I'm witnessing now. Libs and leftists alike are getting maaaaaad (good thread): How am I supposed to believe that this all isn't a wee bit sus?. Nate Silver gives the game away. Thanks, Nate! If Biden steps down, the "liberal" press will immediately launch into a campaign to discredit the new dem nominee with their empowerment using everything in their toolkit. This is beyond disgusting. I will not forget this.
I would just edit this in, but editing anything after posting an embedded tweet is a messy affair, especially if other links are included. I've come to appreciate it as a disincentive structure, of sorts, but otherwise I'd spare hubski another comment. Doing this because I think I'd have liked to have had a "But Her Emails" and "Hillary's health questions" chronicling, which is essentially happening all over again. Completely agree with every element of Beau's take about tonight's ABC interview of Biden, it's worth the 8 minutes: And you know? It's sad that Biden talking about his administration's accomplishments is going to be the first time so many ABC viewers or Biden campaign season watchers hear about them. It's sad that a broken, self-destructing government drives media revenue so much higher than a functioning administration. Just some cool profit-seeking. No responsibility. Meanwhile, the interview should've been declared successful the moment Laura Loomer tweeted the lie that Biden had a medical emergency aboard Air Force One on the way home, which was of course picked up by Fox News contributors and at least one scumbag senator. Because we really needed one more example of the asymmetrical media environment.
I'll add- even without the medias spin, Biden giving a competent interview is about the least exciting story ever. So just from like a , what's fun to talk about point of view , its starting from a bad place.
It is post-debate day #15. I think it's officially Joever. The "pivotal press conference" headline is a fine example. It would be against the current rules of American pol pundits to say "he talked ok", even though he did, and even considering the use of teleprompter. The pundit class has found a way, simultaneously, to split the dems nearly down the middle on the presidential nominee while also keeping the substance of Biden's speeches almost entirely sidelined. Flip-side of the same-thing: Trump confidently lied throughout the entire debate and has been well-rewarded for it. Yeah, Biden got Gaza-Israel suuuuuper wrong, but the NATO tack is.. more than mostly OK. Which is a pretty goddamn glowing endorsement from me, when scaled to statements I typically make on geopolitics. I don't want to abandon our European (and other!) allies. They don't deserve it. But yeah, the NATO speech doesn't matter. It just doesn't. That's how this works. The NYTimes did publish a 5,000-word essay on why Trump shouldn't run a couple days ago, but the damage is done. No I'm sure the media would treat Kamala fairly and make any arguments against her in good faith (>release X to stop lying) edit: Oh yeah, btw, spence, we got another "experts say" in the screencap headlines, it's been less than two or three weeks since the last one. God, that and "critics claim" is practically essing fascist dee, at this point edit2: meanwhile >miffed shrug emoji edit3: too good not to chronicle today's WaPo spread:
