Belize

But it is. An acceptable prejudice but prejudicial nonetheless. I always was uncomfortable with this kind of language.

This is one of those cases where reporters will keep asking the question despite it already being answered. Until they get bored and move on, that is. People don't realize it yet, but Biden dropping out would mean Trump gets elected in November. So I consider it a relief that Biden will not.

To illustrate my point: A poll like this: Trump 52%, Biden 48% is the same as this: Biden 52%, Trump 48%. Statistically these two say the same thing.

A 2% swing, you say? That would be from polls that have margins of error of like 3%-5%. "A swing toward Trump" or "polls are unchanged"? Edit: nevermind that polls in June are meaningless. I'm pretty sure Dukakis and Hillary Clinton would have been elected if we followed summer polls

A common theme for years: Medical experts in the field of geriatrics: No, there's nothing wrong with Biden. He's just a normal 80-year-old man with no serious conditions that people often stereotype seniors with. Political people: *continues to offensively talk about Biden's age* The "Biden is too old" narrative completely ignores expertise in favor of ignorant groupthink. It's also bigotry against seniors, but it's considered an acceptable prejudice. ""According to Dr. Bradley Willcox, geriatrics expert and researcher at the Kuakini Medical Center in Hawaii, Biden's debate blunders were not a sign of a person in mental decline. Rather, given the president's well-documented struggle with a stutter for most of his life, Willcox pointed to the impact that aging has on motor and speech functions and how that shone through last week. "His stutter is coming back," Willcox told Newsweek. "It's just common as you age ... As you get older, the brain connections that are the cause of stutters, and inhibit the stutter when you're younger, are not as strong."

Trump's sentencing in the New York trial has been postponed from July 11 to September 18. That's two days before the first states beginning early voting.

The November election is going to be about whether month-over-month inflation remains near 0%, what quarterly GDP growth is going to be the first three quarters of 2024, and how low the unemployment rate is going to be. It's not going to be about Biden being old and losing a debate.

Maybe, but past elections have had plenty of moments where people said, "This is the thing that is going to change the election." Biden being old is well within that traditional of election game-changers we've heard people point out. There's even a precedent of just this such a thing (Reagan in 1984). edit: Yes, I am using "game-changers" sarcastically.

Firstly, this is an awful Supreme Court decision. Confirms the Roberts court is the worst since the court that imposed Dred Scott on the country. Presidents should not have *any* immunity from criminal prosecution. We should criminally prosecute presidents more often. That said, Trump is still going to be put on trial for Jan. 6. For the parts of the events that are *not* under this immunity rule (trying to force Mike Pence to stop the certification of the election, pressuring state officials to overturn the election).

The last three incumbent presidents who lost reelection (Trump in 2020, Bush in 1992 and Carter in 1980) all had economic recessions occurring two years before the election. Biden has not had that.

Looking back at the 2022 midterm elections, it was late July and August when the polls began to change. Before that, the conventional wisdom was a big red wave where Republicans where going to sweep to victory. But beginning in late July-early August, Democrats began to improve in the polls. Biden's job approval rating went from about -17 to -9. The narrative then was still red wave, but it was clear Democrats had gained. It makes sense. Late summer would be when Americans finally started to pay attention to the upcoming election.

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the historian Lichtman and his method of predicting presidential elections. His ideas are fascinating and much of it is agreeable. He basically says campaigns don't matter, and governance is what determines the winner of a presidential election. To that end, it's a perfect answer to the problem of a "perpetual campaign", where campaigns oversaturate our minds, with a new election starting as soon as the previous one ends. It also explains why good politicians lose and bad politicians win. Trump is a bad politician, but he won in 2016 because he was just "the other guy" who was the alternative to the ruling party who had enough fundamentals go against them. I find that agreeable. Election campaigns are meaningless. We quickly forget the ups and downs of them. I completely believe that how the economy has been handled, what laws were passed, what foreign policy events occurred have more impact than a campaign.

Such a comparison doesn't work. Biden is an incumbent president running for reelection who had no significant primary challengers and Clinton was not.

How much debt do you have from your medical degree?

Working 10am to 4pm? The monster.

I don't think most Americans know who the current VP is. You have to be known to be controversial. She would do okay as POTUS, in my opinion.

I regret to inform you Musk has made a Uranus joke on Twitter, and it makes me feel bad for Uranus jokes, which deserve better.

So, there's a proposition: vote for Biden, get him reelected. And then if these health issues are really a problem, Biden can always resign. And Harris would become president. The threat of Trump would be gone, so we wouldn't be doing this under duress. Biden could actually plan his exit and wouldn't be doing it under pressure. Harris would be a fresh slate, and you guys who are critical of Biden-Harris could start arguing about her merits (whether she is good or bad). And all the while, Biden-Harris would be appointing judges, implementing green climate policies and trying to forgive student debt. Do you accept this deal?

I'm not saying Biden runs now on that message, or he even thinks about doing it. I'm just saying resignation as president is a legitimate possibility that wouldn't be a negative thing. And it would be preferable to having this messy debate over Biden's health right now, four months before the election.

If we are really concerned about Biden's health, remember that resignation as president is always an option. Say, he is reelected in November, serves as president for another year and then decides a sudden health problem makes him the second president in history to resign. That would be a much cleaner option than him dropping out of a campaign against Trump four months before the election.

Like I said, the reaction to the debate is traditional Democratic panic. They panic at least once every election cycle no matter what's happening. I can say this because I have been one of them. I panicked back in 2012 because there was a period when I thought Romney was going to win. It's funny now, but there were a few weeks when I was like, "oh my gosh. Obama is going to lose". And then election day came and I was like, "oh. well, that's a pleasant surprise".

To sum it up, if a candidate is an incumbent president and the economy is growing during the election year, they are probably going to win. I am leaning towards Biden winning.

There is a presidential historian named Allan Lichtman who is famous for predicting the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 by using a model completely based on fundamentals of society and politics. That is, he has always dismissed opinion polls and relied on things such as economic conditions and the results of the midterm elections immediately prior to the presidential election. For 2024, he predicts Biden will win and says it would be a major mistake to replace Biden because incumbency is one of his fundamentals. I agree with him on incumbency. No matter how weak an individual president is, the fact they are the incumbent is a very powerful weapon in winning re-election. If Democrats replace Biden they would be losing that weapon. Democrats may think they are getting rid of baggage by booting Biden, but they would be doing the opposite. I have longed believed that incumbent presidents are more likely to win an election than their challengers.