Let’s be honest. Trump is a pro-Russian stooge whose financial and other ties to Russia have never been properly investigated by the US media. These are the same “journalists,” like those at the NY Times, who are running to throw Biden under the bus.
63% of the public thinking Biden is cognitively incapable of serving as president made the path to winning over deep skepticism among loosely affiliated voters a tough problem. Biden has always been far too old and frail to run for president.
Now we just had a sad display that saw that number jump from 63 -> 72. That's catastrophic. People are now confirmed in their perception, and there are many more skeptics. "Skeptic" is too anodyne of a word, the public is appalled.
Prior to the debate, Trump was leading Biden by double digits on key assets like "leadership" and "economic management" - 15, 20 percent in swing states. Biden is now cooked. It is hard to grasp that the public sees a nutball like Trump so relatively positively. It is because Biden is deeply unpopular. You may think this is irrational or unfair.
Half the Dem party is thoroughly done with Biden. He will never, ever inspire enough confidence to swing the tide against Trump. The Republican attacks on Biden's frailty are now deeply resonant. Too many critical voters prefer a vigorous authoritarian type to a perceived weakling.
This election is NOT about Biden. It's about Trump. Talking about Biden only distracts from talking about Trump. And actually replacing Biden would mean no coverage of Trump for half of the remaining time before the election. The media would happily talk first about the fight for nomination, then about the new candidate (not only would it be better for their ratings than covering Trump, but also the Republicans and large parts of their audiences complain when Trump is covered unfavorably).
Besides, there's NO replacement. If there were, we would be hearing specific calls for replacing Biden with that candidate rather than generic calls for removing Biden and replacing him with "somebody". At this extremely late stage a candidate with name recognition below 90% has no chance. And most Americans have no clue who Newsom and Whitmer are. That's fatal because Trump will define the candidate before the candidate is able to air the first ad.
Right, as soon as they persuade Trump to control his ego and avoid being the center of attention. If you believe that, try standing between Trump and a camera. Seriously, folks, each and every election of the last 8 years was about Trump. In 2022 Trump was not on the ballot, was not in office and was not a declared candidate for any future office. The GOP tried to run by asking the voters, "What do you think of the highest inflation in 40 years?" Still, Trump popped up and said, "Forget about it. What do you think about ME?" And you think he'll allow the election in which he's a candidate to be about somebody else?!
If I were Putin I’d want Trump in the White House for the damage he’d do domestically as well as the detrimental impact he’d have on America’s alliances and standing in the world all of which would weaken US power.
That said I’ve seen no evidence Trump is some type of ‘Manchurian candidate’ controlled by Putin.
Clearly he has a sycophantic adoration of Putin (which in itself is incredibly harmful) but first and foremost I think Trump is motivated by his ego. If he thinks that will be damaged by allowing Putin to triumph in Ukraine then it’s conceivable he may provide (or even increase) support to Ukraine.
Don’t get me wrong Trump will be a disaster but I also think there is a level of uncertainty there about the extent to which that is the case.
In the last week's heavy shadows, I came across an article about Roger Federer's commencement speech at Dartmouth. This struck home: " In the 1,526 singles matches I played in my career, I won almost 80 percent of those matches,” Mr. Federer said. “Now, I have a question for all of you. What percentage of the points do you think I won in those matches?”
The answer was 54 percent.
“In other words,” he said, “even top-ranked tennis players win barely more than half of the points they play.”
He went on, “The truth is, whatever game you play in life, sometimes you’re going to lose. A point, a match, a season, a job.”
Even with all the shrugs, disappointments, despair, and increased anxiety, Biden's response at a rally the next day hit home. He rightfully claimed that he blew the debate (something along the lines I do not debate as well as I used to) but then added: at least I will tell you the truth. Then I thought about all the advisors and support that Biden has among his staff. The level of support he has is reassuring and not a cause for nightmares like when I think about Bannon, Kushner, Conway and all of Trump's servants, carrying out the will of an autocrat-wanna-be.
"We know that we live in contradiction, but we also know that we must refuse this contradiction and do what is needed to reduce it. Our task as men is to find the few principles that will calm the anguish of free souls. We must mend what has been torn apart, make justice imaginable again in a world so obviously unjust, give happiness a meaning once more to peoples poisoned by the misery of the century. Naturally, it is a superhuman task. But superhuman is the term for tasks men take a long time to accomplish, that’s all."
I share the concern about Trump 2.0. In many ways I think it would be far worse than Trump 1 as this time he seems to be surrounding himself with ‘true believers’. Last time he at least still had some grown ups in the room.
In trying to find some solace I think Lawrence Freedman’s comments are worth bearing in mind:
“Nobody can be quite sure how Trump would react to events, especially once his ego is engaged. I suspect Putin would be nervous about a Trumpian peace initiative that gave Russia far less than Putin wants or thinks he can get, yet if rejected might lead Trump to agree to much more material support for Ukraine”
Whatever happens Trump will have to deal with the consequences of his actions (as will the rest of us).
I find hopeful takes on Trump disconcerting--maybe they are right, but there is no evidence for them that I can see. Plus basing policy on that is rather to optimistic for my tastes. I like to base policy on pessimistic assumptions. ;)
I’m with you on that. Whilst it’s somewhat clutching at straws I think Trump’s decision to send Javelins to Ukraine in 2017 is noteworthy in that despite his adoration of Putin he was the first U.S. president to send weapons to Ukraine.
Trump should deal with the consequences of his actions, but he is not being held accountable, but we will have to deal with it and that is unacceptable. But this is where we are, Ben.
Ben, it is logistically essentially impossible to replace a presidential candidate.
Republicans have said they would challenge the right of the new candidate to appear on the ballot. The court cases would screw any campaign, would call into question a win by another candidate (facilitating a coup), and would be adjudicated by a Supreme Court with two openly insurrectionist members.
It's unclear that money collected for Biden's run could be transferred to a new campaign. Yeah, it could probably be worked out, but it would cost time we don't have.
It would probably mean conceding Ohio, damaging the senatorial race and at least one tough House race.
The costs of raising the name recognition/popularity of any other Democrat are formidable.
There are a lot of issues that amateur pundits haven't considered.
Money can be used only by Kamala. So yes, fundraising from zero just at the moment name recognition must be built up and, most importantly, the candidate must be defined before the opposition does it. You can bet that before, say, Newsom, airs his first ad, he will already be defined in the minds of half of the country as a "San Francisco liberal".
Thanks again for the battleground analysis, already looking forward to the next part and a possible way out of the trench warfare. There's a lot to say about the US elections and its consequences for the rules based order. Political stability in the US and a balanced foreign policy after WWII have been fundamental for peace and prosperity in Europe, and perhaps to a lesser degree, for the rest of the world. It's sad to see this breaking apart in the age of strongmen and populist upheaval.
Sad yes, but we have the ability to push back to preserve the rules based order that preserves general world peace and prosperity.
Despite uncharacteristic bed wetting by Phillips over Joe Biden’s “debate” performance, the fact remains his reelection is key to Ukrainian survival. Joe is not dropping out and if he did it would be a disaster. I remember 1968 when a sitting president dropped out late in the campaign and basically handed the presidency to Nixon. So job one for Americans is working to ensure the Democrats sweep the fall elections.
I think we all need to take a deep breath after Thursday. Rather than a political an analogy, a sports analogy. In any sport, almost no Champion goes undefeated. These teams have really bad games. The question is how do they bounce back. Biden fights. Yes, he looked and sounded old and addled. But I have seen him at his lowest (at MD Anderson with Beau while my late wife was undergoing cancer treatment there) and you can see how that pains him. He has bounced back. If he remains the nominee we should bounce back with him and support him!
At least in 1968 LBJ was replaced with his VP. Absolutely nobody suggests nominating Kamala. This means that she'll have to be passed over, when unlike Humphrey she actually represents a critical demographic. Furthermore, nominating Newsom would mean firing her even from the VP position (the Constitution does not allow 55 California electors to vote both for Newsom for president and for Harris for VP). That would definitely be a disaster for the entire party (not just on top of the ticket). The thought of wealthy white men in smoke filled back room picking a wealthy white man for president and dumping our first black and female (and Asian) VP from the ticket... What is everybody coming up with this idea smoking?!
There's big risk either way. But people dramatically underestimate the risks of replacement. There's not a consensus candidate so far. And we'd need to find one quickly. Somebody who will not depress the turnout of any demographic or ideological part of the Democratic Party (even after pushing Kamala aside) AND will still be acceptable to millions of anti-Trump Republicans. Assembling a coalition totaling 51% of the popular vote (anything less means Trump victory in the Electoral College) is not easy. It has been done only 5 times over the past half century. It's even harder for a non-incumbent - has been done only 4 times over the past 90 years (and one of them was a VP effectively running for a very popular president's third term). Another interesting historical factoid: no Democrat ever won presidential election while another Democrat was in the White House.
Andrew & Paul, I respect your views enormously but in this case, think your analysis is flawed. There IS a way out of this as long as Joe stands down voluntarily (albeit under pressure) and releases his delegates. If he stays in, even if he re-finds his verve, the campaign will be all about him (& Trunp will hammer the point that a vote for Biden is highly likely to be a vote for Harris) when it should be all about Trump and what he represents. With the 400 delegates free to vote for their choice plus the 75 super delegates, the Convention can make its choice without a ruinous fight of race or gender. In this process, my guess is that Harris will sink without trace (just as she did when she ran in 2020) and if the choice is Whitmer or Raimondo (ie, female) or Newsome or Beshear (ie, white male), so be it. Any one of them would expose Trunp and can turn the age card against him. I don’t know if the Convention picks the VP candidate or the Presidential choice makes the pick, but it can as always be used to balance the ticket: Raphael Warnock (black Southerner); Beshear (Dem governor in a Republican state) etc. In this respect, I myself wouldn’t nominate Newsome even though he’d wipe the floor with Trump in a debate, simply because he’s from San Francisco and why give the GOP that ammunition.
Don't forget that the ticket MUST be acceptable to millions of anti-Trump Republicans. Even a brief fight for nomination will mean that the candidates will try to appeal to the left wing of the party. That will provide plenty of clips to create doubts among anti-Trump Republicans, especially given that any potential replacement does not have nearly as long record as Biden. If we had a consensus candidate who could be nominated by acclamation, that would be one thing. But a fight for nomination would be fatal. That's why Biden decided to run again in the first place. His coalition is fragile and can't easily be replicated by somebody else. People seem to forget that he won a greater share of the popular vote that any Democrat in all but one of the last 14 elections. And the only exception happened at the start of the greatest economic catastrophe in living memory during a Republican presidency, and furthermore the same candidate 4 years later running for re-election with the benefits of incumbency, recovering economy and dead bin Laden actually performed worse than Biden did as a challenger.
To put it crudely, it does not matter how exciting the Dem candidate is. In order to win, the Dems needs votes from millions of Americans who for all their lives have believed that all Dems are evil. They just need to be persuaded that the Dem candidate is the LESSER evil than Trump. Biden managed to do that once. Anybody else's ability to do that is untested. And it will be hampered by the need to appeal to the delegates on policy. The swing voters DO NOT WANT those policies. They abhor them (but they abhor Trump too). Incapacitated Biden is actually a perfect candidate for them. Apart from continuing only for one term (while anybody else will go for two), if Biden is really as low on energy as he seemed to be in the debate, he won't go vigorously for any new legislation on student debt, or immigration, or the environment, or anything else those voters actually do not want any action on (at least from the left). That's a feature, not a bug for them. Of course, they want support for Ukraine and Israel, but that's on autopilot (as long as Biden remains president).
I think that only Kamala Harris is entitled to the Biden-Harris campaign funds, though?
> I myself wouldn’t nominate Newsome even though he’d wipe the floor with Trump in a debate, simply because he’s from San Francisco and why give the GOP that ammunition.
Anyone the Democrats nominate will be attacked. Newsom is fully capable of defending himself.
The ‘Rules Based Order’ is such a fatuous and infantile notion – anyone who nods it through really should not be taken at all seriously. Upon what ‘rules’ was the US’s globe-spanning network of black-site & torture centres based? On what rules was the invasion of Iraq based? What ‘rules’ were used to allow NATO to go way beyond the strict lines of the Libya mandate to destroy most of the country’s infrastructure? What about the bombing of Serbia? What rules make the US’s current occupation of the fertile & oil producing area of Syria legal? The rules of Operations Cyclone and Timber Sycamore? How about the threats made to the lawyers and judges of the ICJ and ICC – what rules are they based upon? What about the mass surveillance of the entire planet – who came up with those rules & where can we read them? What of the rules that see the exposers of War Crimes serve time, but the perpetrators never do so?
Answers to any one of those questions shows what an utter farce the idea of the West's ‘Rules Based Order’ is.
Oops - sorry for the typo - which I've just edited. The 'Rules Based Order' notion though does remain infantile and fatuous though for the (nowhere near exhaustive) list of examples I've given above.
A sobering update, Phillips. On the Russian so-called adaptation it seems more like devolution. If armor had any use at all, why not fully utilize it? It could be the turtle shells are being placed on armor that is already of dubious use, and means the Russians are really unable replace their armor and transport kit at all. I keep seeing things about that within 12-24 months they will have exhausted all their stores.
The other piece I saw yesterday was that AFU were attacking blocking units which is creating confusion and outright refusals to advance in some places now, as well as typhoid and cholera outbreaks along the lines and especially on the left bank of the Dnipro in Kherson (Trent Telenko had a thread on Twitter regarding the cholera issue).
Those trends bode well for AFU with a slow disintegration of the Russian army as a fighting force and vulnerability to a major counter attack IF AFU gets F-16s and more long range fires to hollow out what is left of logistics. AFU cannot try the summer of 2023 again for sure!
I agree the debate was an unmitigated disaster for Biden but also for Trump in many ways. But as a Biden supporter, it concerns me on multiple levels. This election is existential not just for the US, but the entire western security order. You have mentioned so many good options this week (Whitmer, Bashesr, etc) who are very good (having worked cooperatively with Whitmer and Bashear appointments in power) but also none have any foreign policy chops but for Kamala! No doubt they will bring in qualified and experienced staff, but there is no substitute for Biden’s experience.
Thank you for keeping us all informed and bringing the power of your knowledge to bear in this tough time!
As regards the Trump/Biden debate: There is no question that Biden did not do well at all. Damage control started the next day with a straight-forward admission by Biden of his poor showing and age-related diminished capacities. I think that was a very positive move and helped to mitigate the previous night's poor showing. But, let's look at the realities of the situation: Will he drop out? I don't believe he will; Will there be a change of V.P. partners to make voters feel better about any incapacitation he might suffer during a second term? Possible, but not likely; Is panic among the Democratic faithful (and much of the world) warranted? Concern, yes, panic, no. There is still a long way to go before the election; Should Ukraine...and by extension...Europe, be concerned? Absolutely. A Trump victory will be catastrophic for U.S foreign policy...such as it is, but as long as Europe steps up in its support for Ukraine then the war can be managed. After all, even without U.S. support, Europe has a much larger and more modern military capacity and a far larger economy.
So, in summary, nothing has really changed. All of the concerns about the U.S. election and Biden's mental state and health have been with us for the last couple of years. They have been discussed both publicly and privately by European and Ukrainian officials. I have to believe that there are contingency plans, in place, for worst case scenarios. There is no question that the U.S. election is a pivotal one but even with a Biden victory the country is suffering from a deep-seated malaise, socially and politically, that will not be resolved any time soon. This, then, is the moment for Europe to find itself and establish an independence from U.S. dominance that would be beneficial for both.
Whatever the concerns are, I also place a lot of weight on the people that Biden and Trump surround themselves with. The president is the head of a large team, but yes, he or she is also the final word on a decision / etc. Crucially, how things are analyzed and presented to the top executive has a huge impact on subsequent decisions.
For all the faults of the folk around Biden, I’ll take those in a heartbeat over the coterie of convicted felons or folk waiting to commit felonies (to be pardoned later) that surround Trump.
Biden brings deep convictions vs. the flim-flam Trump approach seeking maximum drama to keep his coffers full and the base engaged. The bottom line for Biden is service to his country (ie no pardon or clemency for his own child) vs. Trumps brazen “what’s in it for me?” approach to governing.
The the poll numbers do not reflect this is a testament to the power of mass media and the sheer depth of white grievance politics after 40+ years of agitation by right wing populists that keep making folk vote against their own best interests. Nuts.
I too am worried about what Trump would do, but I think you overstate what the debate showed. I think it showed Trump - unusually for him - sticking to his message like a normal politician. He knows he needs the support of both isolationists and supporters of Ukraine, and therefore can't and won't say either that he will cut off Ukraine or that he won't. He clearly had worked out with his advisers what he could say: the war wouldn't have happened if I were president, we're bearing an unfair share of the economic burden, and I won't just accept what Putin is offering (the implication being: I'm a brilliant negotiator and can do better). None of this clearly foretells what he will do as president if he can't make the war go away without accepting humiliating terms. He'll probably keep trying to reconcile the conflicting political pressures, as he's doing now.
As my late wife would always say, “Believe people when they tell you who they are.” Trump has clearly told us that who he is. There is no “he may act differently or be constrained” as he has shown none of that.
Not entirely correct. Ukraine aid did pass Congress (disgracefully late) with support from many Republicans, including the Speaker. That could not have happened if Trump had actively opposed it, but political constraints, to which even he is subject prevented him from doing that.
There are plenty of reasons to worry about Trump to do, but political constraints on him are a reason not to despair. And there's another reason. Trump doesn't really care about any policy issue. He cares about feeding his own ego. Presiding over a huge disaster in Ukraine - a sort of Afghanistan withdrawal on steroids - will not do that.
If elected, Trump will simply veto aid to Ukraine, and Congress will fail to override it.
In allowing Ukraine aid to pass, Trump made a political calculation based on running for president. The calculation is totally different once he is in office. He wouldn't be constrained in office the way you assert he would be.
He'll actually have YUGE incentives to help Putin. SCOTUS just ruled that getting "gratuity" for an official act after the fact is not bribery. So if Putin later expresses his gratitude to Trump, it won't be a crime.
I have to respectfully disagree on the point of Trump being politically constrained. I think what you point out is that Republicans were politically constrained and it took a while to go against Trump’s wishes. Completely agree with you that for Trump it is about feeding his malignant narcissism/ego/fighting his insecurities. But what makes that dangerous are the hangers on that will use this for worse purposes.
Ignoring all the Biden/Trump politics below, I keep wondering about the purpose of micro-advances. A high school math student can see that it's a losing idea: certainly not a "strategy," Phillips, as you give it the honorific :-) Who is benefitting from wasting 1,000 soldiers a day? All I come up with is Putin's suck-ups: having set the course earlier, they must continue to sacrifice lots of soldiers for minimal kilometers because that seems like winning, only seems.
I'm not sure about Biden's appearance being age-led. More like age correlated if I have understood opinions (everybody's got one), and remote diagnostics of Biden, from neurologists and their like. Are these sympthoms (soft speech, stiff facial mimics etc.) normal for an otherwise healthy 81-year old? What worries me in particular, is if the Biden team internally is aware of some serious neuro-degenerative condition of the president, knowingly choosing not to pressure the president to step down, just crossing fingers that the condition will not display in any upcoming public presidential events. Would it not be perfectly human that Team Biden, out of pure individual/ collective self-interest, would set aside the signs, and carry on with business? Worst case as I see it, is that episodes like this occur in public after the Democratic convention, close to the election, making Biden near un-electable, hence Trump winning by walkover.
The media and the bedwetting brigade jumped all over him, a very successful president,but seemed to ignore the unhinged lying rants from the actual criminal on the stage who happens to be a rapist, thief, tax cheat, adulterer and insurrectionist as adjudicated by multiple judges and juries.
I think every voters minds are already made up. The election will depend on turnout which in this country is usually driven by fear.
Trump scares the shit out of a majority of Americans.
Thanks Rob, yes I saw clips from that performance. That is why I used the word "episode", referring to how such conditions (conspiracy alert) are known to appear.
As a non-american, I can certainly sympathize with the notion of Trump disdain. However: does the polls really reflect a majority of voters? Sorry for opening that worm can, feel free to swim past the bait.
I like that metaphor! But I’ll be sure to spit out the 🪝
Polling has become crap, less than 2% response rate now. What nonpartisan fairly reliable polls do show is .Biden slightly ahead. Again, polls are a poor indicator of actual voting.
I'll take your word regarding the broken polling, which adds to the fascination of your political spectacle. Also, if Biden majority in the most reliable polls does not drop after the debate, does that imply that the election is kind of a binary selection between
a) Let politics have no meaning
b) Let politics have some meaning
?
In other words: is your alleged Biden majority in reality democratic majority, so if Biden actually steps down, it should not make a difference whether the choice on the ballot is Trump/ Biden or say Trump/ Harris?
PS! My questions are rhetorical but well meant, nice if they are interpreted in good will.
I’ll let Simon Rosenberg, a keen Democratic strategist make the argument:
The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to "drop out." That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose.
First of all: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, period. End of story. Voters voted. He won overwhelmingly. And if he were to drop out, it would lead to weeks of chaos, internal foodfighting, and a bunch of candidates who limp into a brutal floor fight at the convention, all while Donald Trump has time to speak to American voters uncontested. All of that would be in service of a nominee who would go into a general election in the weakest possible position with zero dollars in their bank account. You want a highway to losing? It's that.
And at the end of the day, we'd switch to candidates who would, according to polls, be less likely to win than Joe Biden -- the only person ever to defeat Donald Trump.
I have to challenge you on one point, Rob. The term "bedwetters" is a term used to denigrate the Democratic base for being fearful. The main "bedwetters" that I see are the pundit and political consultant class--notably the Biden-hating New York Times--not voters.
The reason I challenge you is this: a lot of people in the Democratic base have genuine reasons to be fearful. People who are sick and dependent on Obamacare, Medicare, or Medicaid, programs that Republicans want to do away with. Gays and trans people who are afraid of violence that Republicans facilitate. Muslims, Hispanics, Jews, and African Americans who rightly fear the religious bigotry and white supremacism practiced by the GOP. Women who fear they might be forced to choose between not having children and chancing carrying a dangerous pregnancy.
People with legitimate fears for their life and safety really, really, really do not need to experience the contempt that is being heaped on them for having legitimate fears.
Now, if one wants to call the NYT publisher a "bedwetter," that's fine. But I'd prefer he be called a dishonest, selfish, myopic little jerk, because he surely is not a child who could be excused for wetting his bed.
> Btw, I think its very worrying for Biden supporters (and I’m one) to somehow pretend like this was one bad night.
It seems like for folks who already thought Biden was in cognitive decline, the debate was confirmation. When I'm sick, my level of function can go way down. People who are close to Biden know the truth, but from my perspective, he was fine in the state of the union address, and he was fine in his rally the day after the debate (granted, speaking from a teleprompter in both cases).
I think he had an off night, and I trust the Biden camp to make the decision on whether he is good to go. But, there is a way out if the Biden camp decides he's not good to go for another 4 years. He can resign from office, and Kamala Harris can assume the presidency and run against Trump. I'm not her biggest fan, but she provides a way forward if Biden truly can't serve another 4 years. I don't think this is the case though. I think he just had a bad night.
I have a question about the spillover effects of high Russian losses. Has anyone seen reporting on projected cost of Russian death and pension benefits? I've seen good reporting on Russian inflation from military spending, and UKR is pressing on their income side with oil refineries, but no long-term projections on veteran benefits.
Assuming, say, 1/2 of the 500k+ casualties to-date have long-term disabilities, what does the 1-yr and 5-yr deficit burden of supporting these veterans? Is this a serious impediment on the Russian budget in the short term, or is this mainly a long-term problem that's getting kicked down the road?
I am hopeful my that behind the scenes Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the senior Democrats are leaning hard on Biden to bow out and their public statements of support for him are just a way to give room to have a dignified exit which Biden deserves.
the party should immediately unify behind Harris who has performed better lately
I am not a Harris fan but she is more likely to recover than Biden
Many thanks for this update and the juxtaposition of the Russian strategy with the Trump-Biden debate. Trump is, if anything, highly unpredictable and will probably change his mind about Ukraine many times before possibly (but hopefully not!) becoming President. But you are right that he clearly has some admiration for Putin and, more importantly, Putin probably feels that he can negotiate with Trump and therefore that it's worth trying to hold out until November 5th. He will be further encouraged in this strategy by the perceived weakening of the European camp this week, with Macron, whatever the outcome of the early elections he has called, less influential in EU circles from now on and Scholz, who is weak already, doubling down on his appeasement discourse (despite the fact that Germany is still sending a lot of kit to Ukraine!). The only pieces of good news out of Europe this week have been the formal opening of negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova for EU membership and the nomination (still to be confirmed by the European Parliament ) of Kaja Kallas of Estonia as the new head of EU foreign policy. But neither of these positives will have an immediate effect on the war on the ground.
So, barring rebellion, mutiny or a palace coup in Russia, we will continue to see Russian casualties running at around 1000 a day, adding another 120k plus between now and the end of October, for a series of micro-advances some of which, on present form, Ukraine will subsequently push back. On the other side, we can hope that during this same period, Ukraine will be mobilising and training more soldiers, receiving more equipment, including the long-awaited F16s, producing and using more of its own kit to hit Russian military and other facilities and hopefully taking far fewer casualties in the process.
If the Biden administration really wanted to end this war before the election, it would seem that this is the ideal moment to ratchet up its military support for Ukraine, to give it the best chance of showing Putin not only that he cannot win this war but that he has every chance of losing it before being saved by Trump!
However, if I may, Ron... all that stuff beginning with "?utm" is tracking material, which can sometimes end up giving people who use the link spam or worse.
A clean link (which you will get from the DuckDuckGo search engine) would be: https://whitestork.us/
Thanks. I encourage others to visit the site and donate if you can. I never could get my donation through the other organization mentioned, these new-fangled machines an all and my old mind.
Let’s be honest. Trump is a pro-Russian stooge whose financial and other ties to Russia have never been properly investigated by the US media. These are the same “journalists,” like those at the NY Times, who are running to throw Biden under the bus.
Biden presents Trump's clearest path to power.
It's not the NY Times. 72% of Americans believe Biden lacks the cognitive ability to function as president. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-debate-should-biden-be-running-mental-abilities/
Nobody is throwing Biden under the bus. The concerns are legit and plain.
63% believed so before the debate. So?
63% of the public thinking Biden is cognitively incapable of serving as president made the path to winning over deep skepticism among loosely affiliated voters a tough problem. Biden has always been far too old and frail to run for president.
Now we just had a sad display that saw that number jump from 63 -> 72. That's catastrophic. People are now confirmed in their perception, and there are many more skeptics. "Skeptic" is too anodyne of a word, the public is appalled.
Prior to the debate, Trump was leading Biden by double digits on key assets like "leadership" and "economic management" - 15, 20 percent in swing states. Biden is now cooked. It is hard to grasp that the public sees a nutball like Trump so relatively positively. It is because Biden is deeply unpopular. You may think this is irrational or unfair.
Half the Dem party is thoroughly done with Biden. He will never, ever inspire enough confidence to swing the tide against Trump. The Republican attacks on Biden's frailty are now deeply resonant. Too many critical voters prefer a vigorous authoritarian type to a perceived weakling.
This election is NOT about Biden. It's about Trump. Talking about Biden only distracts from talking about Trump. And actually replacing Biden would mean no coverage of Trump for half of the remaining time before the election. The media would happily talk first about the fight for nomination, then about the new candidate (not only would it be better for their ratings than covering Trump, but also the Republicans and large parts of their audiences complain when Trump is covered unfavorably).
Besides, there's NO replacement. If there were, we would be hearing specific calls for replacing Biden with that candidate rather than generic calls for removing Biden and replacing him with "somebody". At this extremely late stage a candidate with name recognition below 90% has no chance. And most Americans have no clue who Newsom and Whitmer are. That's fatal because Trump will define the candidate before the candidate is able to air the first ad.
unfortunately the republicans can easily make the election about the enfeebled incumbent.
Right, as soon as they persuade Trump to control his ego and avoid being the center of attention. If you believe that, try standing between Trump and a camera. Seriously, folks, each and every election of the last 8 years was about Trump. In 2022 Trump was not on the ballot, was not in office and was not a declared candidate for any future office. The GOP tried to run by asking the voters, "What do you think of the highest inflation in 40 years?" Still, Trump popped up and said, "Forget about it. What do you think about ME?" And you think he'll allow the election in which he's a candidate to be about somebody else?!
If I were Putin I’d want Trump in the White House for the damage he’d do domestically as well as the detrimental impact he’d have on America’s alliances and standing in the world all of which would weaken US power.
That said I’ve seen no evidence Trump is some type of ‘Manchurian candidate’ controlled by Putin.
Clearly he has a sycophantic adoration of Putin (which in itself is incredibly harmful) but first and foremost I think Trump is motivated by his ego. If he thinks that will be damaged by allowing Putin to triumph in Ukraine then it’s conceivable he may provide (or even increase) support to Ukraine.
Don’t get me wrong Trump will be a disaster but I also think there is a level of uncertainty there about the extent to which that is the case.
In the last week's heavy shadows, I came across an article about Roger Federer's commencement speech at Dartmouth. This struck home: " In the 1,526 singles matches I played in my career, I won almost 80 percent of those matches,” Mr. Federer said. “Now, I have a question for all of you. What percentage of the points do you think I won in those matches?”
The answer was 54 percent.
“In other words,” he said, “even top-ranked tennis players win barely more than half of the points they play.”
He went on, “The truth is, whatever game you play in life, sometimes you’re going to lose. A point, a match, a season, a job.”
Even with all the shrugs, disappointments, despair, and increased anxiety, Biden's response at a rally the next day hit home. He rightfully claimed that he blew the debate (something along the lines I do not debate as well as I used to) but then added: at least I will tell you the truth. Then I thought about all the advisors and support that Biden has among his staff. The level of support he has is reassuring and not a cause for nightmares like when I think about Bannon, Kushner, Conway and all of Trump's servants, carrying out the will of an autocrat-wanna-be.
These lines of thought made me revisit some of my favorite Albert Camus pieces. He wrote during troubling times too. The Almond Trees (1940) is one I turn to often these days, https://summereng4u.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/essay-102.pdf
"We know that we live in contradiction, but we also know that we must refuse this contradiction and do what is needed to reduce it. Our task as men is to find the few principles that will calm the anguish of free souls. We must mend what has been torn apart, make justice imaginable again in a world so obviously unjust, give happiness a meaning once more to peoples poisoned by the misery of the century. Naturally, it is a superhuman task. But superhuman is the term for tasks men take a long time to accomplish, that’s all."
This is lovely, thank you for sharing.
I share the concern about Trump 2.0. In many ways I think it would be far worse than Trump 1 as this time he seems to be surrounding himself with ‘true believers’. Last time he at least still had some grown ups in the room.
In trying to find some solace I think Lawrence Freedman’s comments are worth bearing in mind:
“Nobody can be quite sure how Trump would react to events, especially once his ego is engaged. I suspect Putin would be nervous about a Trumpian peace initiative that gave Russia far less than Putin wants or thinks he can get, yet if rejected might lead Trump to agree to much more material support for Ukraine”
Whatever happens Trump will have to deal with the consequences of his actions (as will the rest of us).
I find hopeful takes on Trump disconcerting--maybe they are right, but there is no evidence for them that I can see. Plus basing policy on that is rather to optimistic for my tastes. I like to base policy on pessimistic assumptions. ;)
Me too Phillips. Trump will do more or less what Putin wants. He believes and trusts Putin, sophisticated reader of people that he is (not).
I’m with you on that. Whilst it’s somewhat clutching at straws I think Trump’s decision to send Javelins to Ukraine in 2017 is noteworthy in that despite his adoration of Putin he was the first U.S. president to send weapons to Ukraine.
Supposedly he was pushed into that by Mattis et al.
Agreed! Any attempt to try and discerns less or non-malevolent intent from Trump is a form of denial and copium that is dangerous!
Trump should deal with the consequences of his actions, but he is not being held accountable, but we will have to deal with it and that is unacceptable. But this is where we are, Ben.
I agree Paul. It’s why Biden needs to step aside and allow someone else to run.
Ben, it is logistically essentially impossible to replace a presidential candidate.
Republicans have said they would challenge the right of the new candidate to appear on the ballot. The court cases would screw any campaign, would call into question a win by another candidate (facilitating a coup), and would be adjudicated by a Supreme Court with two openly insurrectionist members.
It's unclear that money collected for Biden's run could be transferred to a new campaign. Yeah, it could probably be worked out, but it would cost time we don't have.
It would probably mean conceding Ohio, damaging the senatorial race and at least one tough House race.
The costs of raising the name recognition/popularity of any other Democrat are formidable.
There are a lot of issues that amateur pundits haven't considered.
Money can be used only by Kamala. So yes, fundraising from zero just at the moment name recognition must be built up and, most importantly, the candidate must be defined before the opposition does it. You can bet that before, say, Newsom, airs his first ad, he will already be defined in the minds of half of the country as a "San Francisco liberal".
Thanks again for the battleground analysis, already looking forward to the next part and a possible way out of the trench warfare. There's a lot to say about the US elections and its consequences for the rules based order. Political stability in the US and a balanced foreign policy after WWII have been fundamental for peace and prosperity in Europe, and perhaps to a lesser degree, for the rest of the world. It's sad to see this breaking apart in the age of strongmen and populist upheaval.
Sad yes, but we have the ability to push back to preserve the rules based order that preserves general world peace and prosperity.
Despite uncharacteristic bed wetting by Phillips over Joe Biden’s “debate” performance, the fact remains his reelection is key to Ukrainian survival. Joe is not dropping out and if he did it would be a disaster. I remember 1968 when a sitting president dropped out late in the campaign and basically handed the presidency to Nixon. So job one for Americans is working to ensure the Democrats sweep the fall elections.
I think we all need to take a deep breath after Thursday. Rather than a political an analogy, a sports analogy. In any sport, almost no Champion goes undefeated. These teams have really bad games. The question is how do they bounce back. Biden fights. Yes, he looked and sounded old and addled. But I have seen him at his lowest (at MD Anderson with Beau while my late wife was undergoing cancer treatment there) and you can see how that pains him. He has bounced back. If he remains the nominee we should bounce back with him and support him!
Yes. He's very resilient. The question in this election is not who Biden is or even who Trump is, but who are WE.
Amen!
https://meidasnews.com/news/for-the-good-of-the-country-its-time-for-some-pundits-to-retire
At least in 1968 LBJ was replaced with his VP. Absolutely nobody suggests nominating Kamala. This means that she'll have to be passed over, when unlike Humphrey she actually represents a critical demographic. Furthermore, nominating Newsom would mean firing her even from the VP position (the Constitution does not allow 55 California electors to vote both for Newsom for president and for Harris for VP). That would definitely be a disaster for the entire party (not just on top of the ticket). The thought of wealthy white men in smoke filled back room picking a wealthy white man for president and dumping our first black and female (and Asian) VP from the ticket... What is everybody coming up with this idea smoking?!
Copium
There's big risk either way. But people dramatically underestimate the risks of replacement. There's not a consensus candidate so far. And we'd need to find one quickly. Somebody who will not depress the turnout of any demographic or ideological part of the Democratic Party (even after pushing Kamala aside) AND will still be acceptable to millions of anti-Trump Republicans. Assembling a coalition totaling 51% of the popular vote (anything less means Trump victory in the Electoral College) is not easy. It has been done only 5 times over the past half century. It's even harder for a non-incumbent - has been done only 4 times over the past 90 years (and one of them was a VP effectively running for a very popular president's third term). Another interesting historical factoid: no Democrat ever won presidential election while another Democrat was in the White House.
Andrew & Paul, I respect your views enormously but in this case, think your analysis is flawed. There IS a way out of this as long as Joe stands down voluntarily (albeit under pressure) and releases his delegates. If he stays in, even if he re-finds his verve, the campaign will be all about him (& Trunp will hammer the point that a vote for Biden is highly likely to be a vote for Harris) when it should be all about Trump and what he represents. With the 400 delegates free to vote for their choice plus the 75 super delegates, the Convention can make its choice without a ruinous fight of race or gender. In this process, my guess is that Harris will sink without trace (just as she did when she ran in 2020) and if the choice is Whitmer or Raimondo (ie, female) or Newsome or Beshear (ie, white male), so be it. Any one of them would expose Trunp and can turn the age card against him. I don’t know if the Convention picks the VP candidate or the Presidential choice makes the pick, but it can as always be used to balance the ticket: Raphael Warnock (black Southerner); Beshear (Dem governor in a Republican state) etc. In this respect, I myself wouldn’t nominate Newsome even though he’d wipe the floor with Trump in a debate, simply because he’s from San Francisco and why give the GOP that ammunition.
Don't forget that the ticket MUST be acceptable to millions of anti-Trump Republicans. Even a brief fight for nomination will mean that the candidates will try to appeal to the left wing of the party. That will provide plenty of clips to create doubts among anti-Trump Republicans, especially given that any potential replacement does not have nearly as long record as Biden. If we had a consensus candidate who could be nominated by acclamation, that would be one thing. But a fight for nomination would be fatal. That's why Biden decided to run again in the first place. His coalition is fragile and can't easily be replicated by somebody else. People seem to forget that he won a greater share of the popular vote that any Democrat in all but one of the last 14 elections. And the only exception happened at the start of the greatest economic catastrophe in living memory during a Republican presidency, and furthermore the same candidate 4 years later running for re-election with the benefits of incumbency, recovering economy and dead bin Laden actually performed worse than Biden did as a challenger.
To put it crudely, it does not matter how exciting the Dem candidate is. In order to win, the Dems needs votes from millions of Americans who for all their lives have believed that all Dems are evil. They just need to be persuaded that the Dem candidate is the LESSER evil than Trump. Biden managed to do that once. Anybody else's ability to do that is untested. And it will be hampered by the need to appeal to the delegates on policy. The swing voters DO NOT WANT those policies. They abhor them (but they abhor Trump too). Incapacitated Biden is actually a perfect candidate for them. Apart from continuing only for one term (while anybody else will go for two), if Biden is really as low on energy as he seemed to be in the debate, he won't go vigorously for any new legislation on student debt, or immigration, or the environment, or anything else those voters actually do not want any action on (at least from the left). That's a feature, not a bug for them. Of course, they want support for Ukraine and Israel, but that's on autopilot (as long as Biden remains president).
You might want to listen to Lawrence O'Donnell: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9vsivYrC4U
I think that only Kamala Harris is entitled to the Biden-Harris campaign funds, though?
> I myself wouldn’t nominate Newsome even though he’d wipe the floor with Trump in a debate, simply because he’s from San Francisco and why give the GOP that ammunition.
Anyone the Democrats nominate will be attacked. Newsom is fully capable of defending himself.
Right, after he actually raised money to air ads. By that time half the country will already believe he's to the left of AOC.
The ‘Rules Based Order’ is such a fatuous and infantile notion – anyone who nods it through really should not be taken at all seriously. Upon what ‘rules’ was the US’s globe-spanning network of black-site & torture centres based? On what rules was the invasion of Iraq based? What ‘rules’ were used to allow NATO to go way beyond the strict lines of the Libya mandate to destroy most of the country’s infrastructure? What about the bombing of Serbia? What rules make the US’s current occupation of the fertile & oil producing area of Syria legal? The rules of Operations Cyclone and Timber Sycamore? How about the threats made to the lawyers and judges of the ICJ and ICC – what rules are they based upon? What about the mass surveillance of the entire planet – who came up with those rules & where can we read them? What of the rules that see the exposers of War Crimes serve time, but the perpetrators never do so?
Answers to any one of those questions shows what an utter farce the idea of the West's ‘Rules Based Order’ is.
> The ‘Rules Based Order’ is such a fatuous and infantile notion – anyone who nods tit through really should not be taken at all seriously.
I refuse to read any further when this is how you make your argument.
Oops - sorry for the typo - which I've just edited. The 'Rules Based Order' notion though does remain infantile and fatuous though for the (nowhere near exhaustive) list of examples I've given above.
A sobering update, Phillips. On the Russian so-called adaptation it seems more like devolution. If armor had any use at all, why not fully utilize it? It could be the turtle shells are being placed on armor that is already of dubious use, and means the Russians are really unable replace their armor and transport kit at all. I keep seeing things about that within 12-24 months they will have exhausted all their stores.
The other piece I saw yesterday was that AFU were attacking blocking units which is creating confusion and outright refusals to advance in some places now, as well as typhoid and cholera outbreaks along the lines and especially on the left bank of the Dnipro in Kherson (Trent Telenko had a thread on Twitter regarding the cholera issue).
Those trends bode well for AFU with a slow disintegration of the Russian army as a fighting force and vulnerability to a major counter attack IF AFU gets F-16s and more long range fires to hollow out what is left of logistics. AFU cannot try the summer of 2023 again for sure!
I agree the debate was an unmitigated disaster for Biden but also for Trump in many ways. But as a Biden supporter, it concerns me on multiple levels. This election is existential not just for the US, but the entire western security order. You have mentioned so many good options this week (Whitmer, Bashesr, etc) who are very good (having worked cooperatively with Whitmer and Bashear appointments in power) but also none have any foreign policy chops but for Kamala! No doubt they will bring in qualified and experienced staff, but there is no substitute for Biden’s experience.
Thank you for keeping us all informed and bringing the power of your knowledge to bear in this tough time!
As regards the Trump/Biden debate: There is no question that Biden did not do well at all. Damage control started the next day with a straight-forward admission by Biden of his poor showing and age-related diminished capacities. I think that was a very positive move and helped to mitigate the previous night's poor showing. But, let's look at the realities of the situation: Will he drop out? I don't believe he will; Will there be a change of V.P. partners to make voters feel better about any incapacitation he might suffer during a second term? Possible, but not likely; Is panic among the Democratic faithful (and much of the world) warranted? Concern, yes, panic, no. There is still a long way to go before the election; Should Ukraine...and by extension...Europe, be concerned? Absolutely. A Trump victory will be catastrophic for U.S foreign policy...such as it is, but as long as Europe steps up in its support for Ukraine then the war can be managed. After all, even without U.S. support, Europe has a much larger and more modern military capacity and a far larger economy.
So, in summary, nothing has really changed. All of the concerns about the U.S. election and Biden's mental state and health have been with us for the last couple of years. They have been discussed both publicly and privately by European and Ukrainian officials. I have to believe that there are contingency plans, in place, for worst case scenarios. There is no question that the U.S. election is a pivotal one but even with a Biden victory the country is suffering from a deep-seated malaise, socially and politically, that will not be resolved any time soon. This, then, is the moment for Europe to find itself and establish an independence from U.S. dominance that would be beneficial for both.
Whatever the concerns are, I also place a lot of weight on the people that Biden and Trump surround themselves with. The president is the head of a large team, but yes, he or she is also the final word on a decision / etc. Crucially, how things are analyzed and presented to the top executive has a huge impact on subsequent decisions.
For all the faults of the folk around Biden, I’ll take those in a heartbeat over the coterie of convicted felons or folk waiting to commit felonies (to be pardoned later) that surround Trump.
Biden brings deep convictions vs. the flim-flam Trump approach seeking maximum drama to keep his coffers full and the base engaged. The bottom line for Biden is service to his country (ie no pardon or clemency for his own child) vs. Trumps brazen “what’s in it for me?” approach to governing.
The the poll numbers do not reflect this is a testament to the power of mass media and the sheer depth of white grievance politics after 40+ years of agitation by right wing populists that keep making folk vote against their own best interests. Nuts.
I too am worried about what Trump would do, but I think you overstate what the debate showed. I think it showed Trump - unusually for him - sticking to his message like a normal politician. He knows he needs the support of both isolationists and supporters of Ukraine, and therefore can't and won't say either that he will cut off Ukraine or that he won't. He clearly had worked out with his advisers what he could say: the war wouldn't have happened if I were president, we're bearing an unfair share of the economic burden, and I won't just accept what Putin is offering (the implication being: I'm a brilliant negotiator and can do better). None of this clearly foretells what he will do as president if he can't make the war go away without accepting humiliating terms. He'll probably keep trying to reconcile the conflicting political pressures, as he's doing now.
As my late wife would always say, “Believe people when they tell you who they are.” Trump has clearly told us that who he is. There is no “he may act differently or be constrained” as he has shown none of that.
Not entirely correct. Ukraine aid did pass Congress (disgracefully late) with support from many Republicans, including the Speaker. That could not have happened if Trump had actively opposed it, but political constraints, to which even he is subject prevented him from doing that.
There are plenty of reasons to worry about Trump to do, but political constraints on him are a reason not to despair. And there's another reason. Trump doesn't really care about any policy issue. He cares about feeding his own ego. Presiding over a huge disaster in Ukraine - a sort of Afghanistan withdrawal on steroids - will not do that.
If elected, Trump will simply veto aid to Ukraine, and Congress will fail to override it.
In allowing Ukraine aid to pass, Trump made a political calculation based on running for president. The calculation is totally different once he is in office. He wouldn't be constrained in office the way you assert he would be.
He'll actually have YUGE incentives to help Putin. SCOTUS just ruled that getting "gratuity" for an official act after the fact is not bribery. So if Putin later expresses his gratitude to Trump, it won't be a crime.
I have to respectfully disagree on the point of Trump being politically constrained. I think what you point out is that Republicans were politically constrained and it took a while to go against Trump’s wishes. Completely agree with you that for Trump it is about feeding his malignant narcissism/ego/fighting his insecurities. But what makes that dangerous are the hangers on that will use this for worse purposes.
Sorry: I meant to write "about what Trump will do."
Ignoring all the Biden/Trump politics below, I keep wondering about the purpose of micro-advances. A high school math student can see that it's a losing idea: certainly not a "strategy," Phillips, as you give it the honorific :-) Who is benefitting from wasting 1,000 soldiers a day? All I come up with is Putin's suck-ups: having set the course earlier, they must continue to sacrifice lots of soldiers for minimal kilometers because that seems like winning, only seems.
I'm not sure about Biden's appearance being age-led. More like age correlated if I have understood opinions (everybody's got one), and remote diagnostics of Biden, from neurologists and their like. Are these sympthoms (soft speech, stiff facial mimics etc.) normal for an otherwise healthy 81-year old? What worries me in particular, is if the Biden team internally is aware of some serious neuro-degenerative condition of the president, knowingly choosing not to pressure the president to step down, just crossing fingers that the condition will not display in any upcoming public presidential events. Would it not be perfectly human that Team Biden, out of pure individual/ collective self-interest, would set aside the signs, and carry on with business? Worst case as I see it, is that episodes like this occur in public after the Democratic convention, close to the election, making Biden near un-electable, hence Trump winning by walkover.
You should check out Biden’s performance at a rally in North Carolina the next day. He was strong and focused.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/28/g-s1-7202/biden-bad-debate-drop-out-raleigh-rally
The media and the bedwetting brigade jumped all over him, a very successful president,but seemed to ignore the unhinged lying rants from the actual criminal on the stage who happens to be a rapist, thief, tax cheat, adulterer and insurrectionist as adjudicated by multiple judges and juries.
I think every voters minds are already made up. The election will depend on turnout which in this country is usually driven by fear.
Trump scares the shit out of a majority of Americans.
Thanks Rob, yes I saw clips from that performance. That is why I used the word "episode", referring to how such conditions (conspiracy alert) are known to appear.
As a non-american, I can certainly sympathize with the notion of Trump disdain. However: does the polls really reflect a majority of voters? Sorry for opening that worm can, feel free to swim past the bait.
I like that metaphor! But I’ll be sure to spit out the 🪝
Polling has become crap, less than 2% response rate now. What nonpartisan fairly reliable polls do show is .Biden slightly ahead. Again, polls are a poor indicator of actual voting.
I'll take your word regarding the broken polling, which adds to the fascination of your political spectacle. Also, if Biden majority in the most reliable polls does not drop after the debate, does that imply that the election is kind of a binary selection between
a) Let politics have no meaning
b) Let politics have some meaning
?
In other words: is your alleged Biden majority in reality democratic majority, so if Biden actually steps down, it should not make a difference whether the choice on the ballot is Trump/ Biden or say Trump/ Harris?
PS! My questions are rhetorical but well meant, nice if they are interpreted in good will.
I’ll let Simon Rosenberg, a keen Democratic strategist make the argument:
The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to "drop out." That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose.
First of all: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, period. End of story. Voters voted. He won overwhelmingly. And if he were to drop out, it would lead to weeks of chaos, internal foodfighting, and a bunch of candidates who limp into a brutal floor fight at the convention, all while Donald Trump has time to speak to American voters uncontested. All of that would be in service of a nominee who would go into a general election in the weakest possible position with zero dollars in their bank account. You want a highway to losing? It's that.
And at the end of the day, we'd switch to candidates who would, according to polls, be less likely to win than Joe Biden -- the only person ever to defeat Donald Trump.
I have to challenge you on one point, Rob. The term "bedwetters" is a term used to denigrate the Democratic base for being fearful. The main "bedwetters" that I see are the pundit and political consultant class--notably the Biden-hating New York Times--not voters.
The reason I challenge you is this: a lot of people in the Democratic base have genuine reasons to be fearful. People who are sick and dependent on Obamacare, Medicare, or Medicaid, programs that Republicans want to do away with. Gays and trans people who are afraid of violence that Republicans facilitate. Muslims, Hispanics, Jews, and African Americans who rightly fear the religious bigotry and white supremacism practiced by the GOP. Women who fear they might be forced to choose between not having children and chancing carrying a dangerous pregnancy.
People with legitimate fears for their life and safety really, really, really do not need to experience the contempt that is being heaped on them for having legitimate fears.
Now, if one wants to call the NYT publisher a "bedwetter," that's fine. But I'd prefer he be called a dishonest, selfish, myopic little jerk, because he surely is not a child who could be excused for wetting his bed.
> Btw, I think its very worrying for Biden supporters (and I’m one) to somehow pretend like this was one bad night.
It seems like for folks who already thought Biden was in cognitive decline, the debate was confirmation. When I'm sick, my level of function can go way down. People who are close to Biden know the truth, but from my perspective, he was fine in the state of the union address, and he was fine in his rally the day after the debate (granted, speaking from a teleprompter in both cases).
I think he had an off night, and I trust the Biden camp to make the decision on whether he is good to go. But, there is a way out if the Biden camp decides he's not good to go for another 4 years. He can resign from office, and Kamala Harris can assume the presidency and run against Trump. I'm not her biggest fan, but she provides a way forward if Biden truly can't serve another 4 years. I don't think this is the case though. I think he just had a bad night.
I have a question about the spillover effects of high Russian losses. Has anyone seen reporting on projected cost of Russian death and pension benefits? I've seen good reporting on Russian inflation from military spending, and UKR is pressing on their income side with oil refineries, but no long-term projections on veteran benefits.
Assuming, say, 1/2 of the 500k+ casualties to-date have long-term disabilities, what does the 1-yr and 5-yr deficit burden of supporting these veterans? Is this a serious impediment on the Russian budget in the short term, or is this mainly a long-term problem that's getting kicked down the road?
I am hopeful my that behind the scenes Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the senior Democrats are leaning hard on Biden to bow out and their public statements of support for him are just a way to give room to have a dignified exit which Biden deserves.
the party should immediately unify behind Harris who has performed better lately
I am not a Harris fan but she is more likely to recover than Biden
Many thanks for this update and the juxtaposition of the Russian strategy with the Trump-Biden debate. Trump is, if anything, highly unpredictable and will probably change his mind about Ukraine many times before possibly (but hopefully not!) becoming President. But you are right that he clearly has some admiration for Putin and, more importantly, Putin probably feels that he can negotiate with Trump and therefore that it's worth trying to hold out until November 5th. He will be further encouraged in this strategy by the perceived weakening of the European camp this week, with Macron, whatever the outcome of the early elections he has called, less influential in EU circles from now on and Scholz, who is weak already, doubling down on his appeasement discourse (despite the fact that Germany is still sending a lot of kit to Ukraine!). The only pieces of good news out of Europe this week have been the formal opening of negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova for EU membership and the nomination (still to be confirmed by the European Parliament ) of Kaja Kallas of Estonia as the new head of EU foreign policy. But neither of these positives will have an immediate effect on the war on the ground.
So, barring rebellion, mutiny or a palace coup in Russia, we will continue to see Russian casualties running at around 1000 a day, adding another 120k plus between now and the end of October, for a series of micro-advances some of which, on present form, Ukraine will subsequently push back. On the other side, we can hope that during this same period, Ukraine will be mobilising and training more soldiers, receiving more equipment, including the long-awaited F16s, producing and using more of its own kit to hit Russian military and other facilities and hopefully taking far fewer casualties in the process.
If the Biden administration really wanted to end this war before the election, it would seem that this is the ideal moment to ratchet up its military support for Ukraine, to give it the best chance of showing Putin not only that he cannot win this war but that he has every chance of losing it before being saved by Trump!
Thank you for another thought-provoking report and analysis.
As an FYI, I came across the White Stork organization and will pass along this link to those who might not have heard of it.
https://support.whitestork.us/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjwhIS0BhBqEiwADAUhcy5WLlKbYYNyb7U46ZniNGJZhEdaCd_Mnxj0fj5TqnkxKqQQnKsW9BoCqO4QAvD_BwE&utm_campaignid=21287925271&utm_adgroupid=&utm_adid=&utm_keyword=&utm_matchtype=&utm_campaign=EX_WS_GG_US_CA_Pmax_Brand_IFAK&utm_adgroup=&utm_content=21287925271&gad_source=1
It sounds like a worthy organization.
However, if I may, Ron... all that stuff beginning with "?utm" is tracking material, which can sometimes end up giving people who use the link spam or worse.
A clean link (which you will get from the DuckDuckGo search engine) would be: https://whitestork.us/
Thanks - I'll use Duck Duck Go going forward.
Thanks. I encourage others to visit the site and donate if you can. I never could get my donation through the other organization mentioned, these new-fangled machines an all and my old mind.
You are welcome.
As for the other organization; Come Back Alive, a fresh link follows.
The current exchange rate is 100 Ukrainian hryvnia equals $2.47 US.
https://savelife.in.ua/en/
How serious is this claim the Russians have acquired an ATACMS intact ?
Thank you.