If that makes any sense.

I just feel like the people behind the whole whisper campaign are not any elected official, not really, even if they agreed to ask Joe to step down. I think there is shadowy cabal of millionaires and billionaires who engineered this. They are not interested in democracy; even if they genuinely believed Biden was incapable, they want someone they can control. Someone who will agree to lower their taxes in payback, or de-regulated crypto or whatever is good for them but bad for us.

And I'd love to get dirty money out of politics as well. But I think if billionaires just wanted a tax break, they'd be supporting Trump. He is the obvious pro-oligarch candidate.

Polls have been telling us for months that the majority of Democrats and 60-70% of regular voters wanted a different choice. And to me, applying Occam's razor, it seems more likely that our elected leaders and people who win elections for a living were looking at those polling numbers and not seeing a path to victory for Joe than that all the billionaires and the media and elected Dems just inexplicably had it in for Biden and decided to throw the election into chaos on the off chance that they might get a candidate more pro-tax cut than him.

I just have a bad feeling about this. It is also possible that all the breathless reporting on anonymous Dems supposedly wanting Joe to drop out probably CAUSED some of those bad poll numbers (assuming they were legitimate polls, which I think some of them may not have been).

No way is that true. And I don’t believe those polls that purported to show that.

The late great Hannibal Lecter

It was pretty easy to dismiss the few abrasive remarks to loyalty and bad actors. Biden had my vote yesterday. Kamala now has my vote. If things change again (please don't!), I'll still vote for the Democratic nominee.

Sun Tzu wrote, “The value of time, that is of being a little ahead of your opponent, often provides greater advantage than superior numbers or greater resources.” We can spend the time to November singing Biden's accomplishments and nodding sagely when Kamala says she plans to continue with similar policies.

All the information was available.

What lacked was a willingness to see.

We need to be willing to see the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. It's difficult to draw a map forward if you don't know where you are.

the land of Oz, so everything looked green to them.

Speaking of the media, I would encourage others to read Charles M. Blow. Especially, everything he wrote the first 10 days of the month.

On a site that has rules enforcing civil discussion and "no kooky/extremist/hate" content I've been called a stupid, insane, fantasist, pants-wetting, bed-shitting, blathering, screeching, hysterical, Trump-supporting, Putin-shilling, false flag traitor who hates democracy and wants to overturn the will of the people and that who needs to STFU and get off this website.

For posting poll results.

I love DU. I've posted here for 23 years. And this was the first time I felt like it was a waste of time to even try to engage in civil discussion because we were not allowed to post facts or polite statements of our pro-party rather than pro-candidate positions without the threat of our account being suspended. And I found that profoundly sad and disheartening. And as much as I wanted to give up on coming here at all, I found that I couldn't because it's such an ingrained habit for me to check what's happening here like 20 times a day.

I give full props to EarlG for his new position and respect that we need to not relitigate past decisions and move forward. But I think there are some pretty essential "lessons learned" here and that's why I thought it was necessary to post what I did.

Just for one evening. That's all.

and in the meantime if you don't want to read it you always have the option not to.

should also be reflecting on their own behavior and treatment of community members rather than imaging a conspiracy of targeted alerting. The moderation system here is very thoughtful and works really well.

but as an illustrative example I had a post pulled which literally just said I don't think the camera angles in the debate made Joe lose his train of thought. And I had posts pulled that were literally just reporting polling that showed Joe behind.

I'm not saying every post that was pulled wasn't in violation of the ToS but it was very obvious, particularly the first few days after the debate, that any post that even acknowledged the reality of a poor debate performance was being pulled for "bashing Dems".

That's what I mean when I say we need to create an environment where we can have a discussion that starts in the reality of what people have actually seen and experienced with their own eyes and that Democrats of good faith can take different views on that. If we don't have that, then what is the point?

Trolling and propaganda makes it really difficult but I'm hoping we can use this experience to move forward and engage on a more civil footing even where we have disagreements.

I get it. It's hard to admit that one has treated people poorly.

Here's my self-reflection:

I described what I saw as objective reality - that Joe trailed off in the middle of his thoughts and that he did in fact perform poorly at the debate in a way that could not be attributed to the moderators, the camera angles, his cold, etc. I posted polls that showed he was behind and had been for some time. I did it because I thought we needed to support a hard decision with the truth and the facts as we best understood them at the time as our guide. And I posted all of those things civilly without ever hurling personal abuse at anyone or attributing malicious motivations to them. And I would do exactly the same thing next time.

There you go. Your turn.

Definitely lead to a lack of discussion about what has been seen as an inevitability in much of the country for a long time. That allowed some posters to live in a fantasy echo chamber that dismissed credible reports by knowledgeable journalists and political insiders as manipulative and fake reporting.

Primary season around here should last until the convention and official nomination.

...as rejecting facts.

Don't get a cramp from patting yourself on the back for running off our democratically chosen nominee.

What (presumably) you and others that knifed Biden in the back did was go against the ideals of democracy and the will of Democratic voters.

It was shameful and will not be forgotten.

It was not clear during the primary that Biden was struggling as much as he was.

If Biden had died or had a stroke and been significantly incapacitated, I don't think anyone here would be arguing about the need to replace him on the ticket, even if the primary was already over.

So we can agree that there is a continuum of incapacity and that there is a point on it where it is acceptable to replace a nominee even after the primaries are over.

People of good faith can disagree about where on the continuum they think that point is, and they can disagree about whether or not Biden is at that point.

But I don't think it's helpful to claim other Democrats who simply disagree with you on that are traitors who are knifing the President in the back.

I don't think you should say we ran "off our democratically chosen nominee"
That is an attack on us and that is not nice.

We could say that there is no praise for keeping a candidate such as Biden on the ticket.

Excuse you, WE had a primary to decide all of this and WE voted for Biden -- and (presumably) people like yourself ran him off.

Don't claim facts are not allowed and then spew that ridiculous lie you did.

There can be legitimate reasons to change, even after a vote. I felt this is an obvious example and many Dems agree.

I was confident that Biden would demolish trump in debate, then I was horrified.

Things change.

Do I care if somebody's primary vote got negated? No, not really.... not when it's not actually binding on anything and the candidate, himself, can fix it.

If Biden could not win despite your vote he should have done the honorable thing and stepped aside. Predictably, Biden DID the honorable, heroic thing. He stepped aside.

I think what you're doing now, albeit unintentionally, is questioning his own honor and wisdom. This is not about you... this is about all of us.

I just didn't think he sounded well. Not dementia--but just looked and sounded like he was wearing out, and I had trouble understanding him when he spoke. Maybe he will be able to rest now and finish his job.

We savaged our Democratic Leaders, our Donors and made a Straw Man out of the Media.

When I made the point that it was not just them, but a majority of Dem voters and half of black voters who wanted Biden to step down, the post was locked.

And yet posts that falsely claimed that the regular voter were having their will stepped on, were allowed to stay up.

I had asked that if we were not allowed to defend those calls for him to step down, then at least don't let people post those awful attacks in the first place.

I noted often that we would undermine turnout for those Dem Leaders and even undermine turnout in the General if Biden was replaced.
My pleas were denied.

Rather than honestly seeking to do what is best for the country. (That framing is still going on.) Doing what is best for the country sometimes requires putting personal interests and loyalties to a person or a personal goal aside - as Biden ultimately did. It also requires us to view this not as personal animosity or attacks on a person (that he doesn't deserve based on his past service), but as a conversation about what is needed for our country now.

As I said earlier, I thought the time for this decision passed when Biden decided to run for a second term.

That has changed in the last couple of days. I know that I saw enough that, in light of my experience with my spouse (with diagnosed cognitive issues) to be concerned. And, as I've started to say in the last couple of days - despite the risk of having posts hidden, because of that experience I trust those with personal experience with Biden (those in his inner circle, or those who have worked with him over the years in Congress) to have a better sense of what his current capabilities are than those of us on the outside. I don't know what those who know, and have worked with, Biden have seen recently to get them over the high hill to encourage him to step down at this stage. But whatever it is, pushed me to the position that, even at this late stage Biden needed to step down.

But, of course, saying that here was forbidden.

Instead, the "Media", the "Elites", the "Donors" and the "Democratic Leadership" were established as Straw Men with no way to discuss the situation.

I had one post hidden for suggesting essentially what the OP here suggested. We need to have conversations about what is best for our country with our eyes wide open, not censored or looking through rose-colored glasses, referencing an opinion pieces by Dan Rather and Medhi Hasan that said essentially the same thing.

Of antagonism to other board members. That's a big factor to consider in all of this.

To DU's credit my posting privileges have been restored. I don't know if Biden's decision today had anything to do with that, but I'm grateful.

It was an actual offense here to agree with time-tested, trusted, respected Democrats such as Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, who were thrown under the bus just as some of us here were.

I really don't blame the admins here for my treatment... it was other DU posters utilizing the jury system to punish those with different opinions.

Aside from all that, my biggest two cents:

Joe Biden is unmistakably a great man who has done a great job as President. But as I said before I was banished, and as Nancy Pelosi said publicly, the election is not about what somebody did in the past but about what he/she can do for us going forward. Yes, Joe Biden has done a great job, but all we owe him is our thanks.... nothing more. We are not a cult. We don't have gods. We vote for politicians, of which Joe Biden is one. We don't owe him loyalty, we only owe ourselves and our fellow citizens a healthy moral country. And it became plain to many of us that Biden could no longer serve us, not because he's incapable but because the likelihood of his election was dismal.

And what better place to discuss that than on this site dedicated to Democratic causes? It is not constructive to shut down such talk, and lo and behold many people punished here have been vindicated. Vindicated? Damn straight; Joe Biden tacitly admitted today that we made a valid point.

Now, surely, I can see that there comes a time when such talk should end... but Biden was NOT yet our official candidate, and turning this place into a bubble was premature. And I hope people have learned a lesson.

And now I'll jump down from my high horse.

Thank you,. admins, for restoring my posting privileges.

...be reasonable.

I believed Biden should have stayed in. However, when I saw one report after another about other influential people suggesting he should stand down, I began to wonder where is this coming from. Even when I stated he should stay in but pointed out we might not be told everything and that there could be something afoot, I got called for peddling GOP talking points. Lost count of the jury declines as I knew it would probably be about Biden stepping down.

Some members from what I could tell, are owed an apology, doubt they will get it though. Having a different opinion can often mean heresy here. I have few unpopular opinions, but know I can't voice them here. It's not against the TOS, but goes against the grain for many here.

On top of that, there were very few members saying he might have to step aside. Most posts were "Fuck *insert here*" and were basically keeping the conversation alive.

Let me just say, I had a lot of Jury Duty the last several weeks.

“Simply about the majority of ordinary Democratic voters losing faith…”

More to do with billionaires and bitcoin. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219193849

I do happen to disagree that this was some kind of coup orchestrated by the elites and I think that's damaging to party unity going forward, but I respect that other people may take a different view on it. I don't think Adam Schiff, et al would have done what they did if they didn't believe that it was the majority opinion of actual voters, particularly in the swing states.

What I respect is EarlG's decision today that we can all discuss this again on an equal footing and that there be an amnesty for people who were posting in good faith that they thought what happened today might be a possibility.