... Mike Pence! But, to be fair, his recent silence is about the best he can do with this old tradition...

What I find strange is, "Biden, who remains unpopular in public opinion polls..." I'm not sure he's THAT unpopular. He was the most popular politician in the USA in 2020. And Hillary is often mentioned as being unpopular. Remember, she was voted the most popular politician in the USA in 2016. And that was AFTER the big campaign admitted by Kevin McCarthy for Republicans and FOX ilk to "drive down her popularity" (paraphrasing). I don't think Biden is as "unpopular" as the media (the collective media) proclaims.

Last edited Sat Oct 19, 2024, 06:51 AM - Edit history (1)

The sadistic media decided to create a "narrative" back in July to pummel Biden into a pulp to utterly destroy him. They have STILL not let up, making sure they include at least one "insult" or irrelevant reference to the June debate, in almost every single article that includes his name. I'm not sure why other than they are a bunch of obsessive, cult-like RW-brainwashed sick fucks.

One potential speculation would be their inherent/underlying racist attitudes, where Biden's presence on the Obama ticket, helped to propel the election of the first black President, and his selection of Harris on his own ticket, helped to propel the election of the first black/Asian female Vice President. So that = the assignment of the "n****er lover" trope to Biden, a sentiment that they most likely embrace consciously or subconsciously. This is how racists operate when it comes to "punishment".

Why is it necessary to add the opposing candidate’s view of Biden? He’s wildly popular among responsible people, and wildly unpopular among deplorables and treasonsits.

If they are going to describe public opinion they should include who the opinion sides represent.

ratings up. Who gives a crap? We know who Biden is and what he's done during the nearly 4 years he's been in office, with a long list of amazing accomplishments despite a divided congress.

That I grew up with hearing in our household my entire life!

while holding a pair of eights: 51% of Congress and 33% of the Supreme Court. The remainder hard set against him.

The media still doesn't acknowledge what an achievement this is.

May I have permission to credit and share this post?

have the fucking clue. They're corporate. Corporate is pathological and soulless.
They've thrown in with profiteering Mammon to create FUD and justify existing sadists and racists. So why would they ever, anymore, engage in "lessons learned" feedback. Their win-win is money and simultaneous negative framing "news" that's anti-democratic government and Democratic administrations -- and you're right, ever since Obama. Media's dark underbelly is fascist.

they are collectively as vile and racist as the orange demon

Every damn time he broaches Trump's current state, he has to start with Biden and the debate. There is no comparison between Trump's constant rambling incoherence, and one bad debate.
It's like throwing Joe under the bus again and again. For crissakes give it a rest. The man stepped down. Leave him be.

I am grateful for what he did and for the fact that we have Kamala Harris as VP and candidate for president.

It's exactly what they are doing. They are seriously sick and maybe need to take a break from "writing" (if that is what they call it).

It has now basically become a part of their style guide as a "mandatory" element that must be included in any story.

What Biden did at the debate was attempt to fact-check and correct the rambling gish-galloping bullshit uttered by an insane man that the moderators refused to do, and then doing so after coming back from multiple, back-to-back trips to Europe, plus dealing with Hunter's trial (and still always having his childhood stutter issue pop up as is typical for those afflicted).

They actually created an "exaggerated narrative" that has now become a "false narrative" that has taken on a life of its own in completely re-writing history.

I was disgusted by the coverage afterward on MSNBC, from Nicolle and Claire McCaskill especially.

and once it took hold, they helped to repeat the mantra "disastrous debate" (the most common "term" initially, and then some synonymous term afterwards) a million times in every article for the past 3 1/2 months straight.

If someone were to generate a word cloud of the media and their articles mentioning Biden, that would come up with a huge font.

I remember the same crap happening to Obama after his first debate with Rmoney. He went on to have 2 more debates IIRC, but it took a long time to disinfect the characterization from that first debate. The result of their self-serving "analysis", would trigger even more of the foaming-at-the-mouth "horse race poll narratives" that resulted in the purported "gold standard" of polling - Gallup - to declare that Rmoney would win the 2012 election. Thanks to that debate! It didn't matter how he did after.

November 5, 2012
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey
Early voting so far breaks 49% for Obama and 48% for Romney
Gallup Editors

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are within one percentage point of each other in Gallup's final pre-election survey of likely voters, with Romney holding 49% of the vote, and Obama 48%. After removing the 3% of undecided voters from the results and allocating their support proportionally to the two major candidates, Gallup's final allocated estimate of the race is 50% for Romney and 49% for Obama.



The survey was conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Nov. 1-4.

(snip)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who peeped that petty bullshit.
So sick of them and their messy games.

Pretty much everyone I know, the majority of people on Facebook and Threads I see regularly, etc., are saying that he is not only a great president but one of the (if not THE) best presidents in their lifetime. So I really don't believe that crap from the media!

As a Kamala supporter, I want her to beat TFG. But in order to do that, she must distinguish herself from the President and fast. The American people aren't happy with President Biden and she has to show that she is going to take a different direction than him and distinctly how she is going to do that. She has to seal the deal with the public by stepping into her own and with specifics as to how she is going to be different. She can't get into the weeds as to how she is not going to criticize him because she needs to lay that marker down for the voters that aren't happy with the direction of the country and won't commit to voting for her. VP Kamala has got to take the win.

of the country are not necessarily upset about Biden and his achievements. Have you -- and the media types who cite this statistic -- ever stopped to consider that voters are concerned about the GOP and it's growing Fascist leanings? That makes me unhappy about the direction the country is going.

And as I pointed out several times before, the Biden approval ratings are skewed continuously by 75 or 80 percent of the Republican survey respondents who express dissatisfaction as part of their service to Trump, regardless of what good and productive things Biden did. Note the nearly 90 percent of Trump voters who think the economy is bad, even though most know it is not.

What would you have her do differently than President Biden? Be less successful? Do less even with a razor thin margin of error in Congress? Go back on what she had already said on support of Israel. Turn back time and handle Afghanistan withdrawal differently?

when a majority of the population said we were on the "right track" as a nation. It doesn't seem to matter who is in charge for that. To me, if you are struggling, you are more likely to think things are heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are struggling in one way or another, so it seems natural that most would think we're heading in the wrong direction.

1: The country is not happy with Biden - says who? Poll jackers? Biden isn't running so who cares?

2: She has to prove she's different than Biden - no, she has to prove her vision is different and better than Trump's.

3: She has to seal the deal with the public by stepping into her own and with specifics as to how she is going to be different - she has many times, but the RW and complicit media keep harping that she hasn't because, being a minority and a woman, she has to be perfect and all Trump needs to do being a Republican white man is to breathe in and out and (maybe) not drool on himself while doing it.

4: She can't get into the weeds as to how she is not going to criticize him because she needs to lay that marker down for the voters that aren't happy with the direction of the country and won't commit to voting for her - those that aren't committed to her now are highly likely to never have and never wanted.



"she must distinguish herself from the President and fast." Did you not watch her destroy Trump in the debate? This post is all RW tropes wrapped up in one.

Why are you criticizing one of the most successful presidents in our history?

AND trump putting themselves in opposition to his good policies.

They act like spoiled children who are never happy with what they have.

It's undecided voters who weren't happy with Biden and want a change.
The Dem or die types like you and I are going to vote for Harris regardless. She doesn't need to prove her loyalty to us--or Biden.

Do I hear a hearty "Amen?"

Base on some of the responses, you may be hitting too close to the truth for comfort around here. We like to support our candidates blindly, lol.

The media doesn't report anything in good faith, so the question "What would you do differently than Joe Biden" is a question the media is asking solely to stir up controversy. If she states directly what she would do differently than Biden the media will spin it negatively, speculate there is "tension" in the White House, etc. Biden is still President, there is nothing positive that would come out of a VP criticizing the President that she serves with side by side.

Kamala isn't running against Joe Biden, she is running against Trump. And Kamala, without criticizing Joe Biden, has already stated more than once that "I'm not Joe Biden" and then has listed her policies clearly on every stump.

Just because those replying see the pitfall in Kamala publicly criticizing Joe Biden does not equate to "blind support" for her. It's recognizing the media that we have these days and the best way to answer the question so as not to give them the breathless drama they crave. The headlines would not be Kamala versus Trump, it would be all about Kamala versus Joe Biden--and that is not the distraction we want right now.

And addressing them. Biden’s numbers are far worse than Kamala’s. Appropriate differentiation is needed to mitigate that. That is just hard political calculus.

There is nothing to be gained by Kamala criticizing Biden's Presidency while she is still his VP and Biden is still the President. No one is going to be "swayed" by that, and it looks bad optically.

... I'm an American People, and I'm perfectly happy with him. What's not to like? People who "aren't happy" with Joe Biden wouldn't be happy with Buddha (who wouldn't take the job anyway).

-- Mal

Media is only asking that question for a headline to stir up drama. Do you truly think the media would take any answer Kamala made and report it in any responsible way that focused on the substance of her answer? No! The headlines would be completely focused on:

“Kamala Harris in disagreement with Biden’s xyz policy. Is this a sign of tension in the WH?” (To be followed by breathless speculation of conflicts between Kamala and Biden)

Or

“Kamala Harris states she is not in disagreement with Biden’s policies, does she have any of her own or would a Harris Presidency be a continuation of a Biden presidency, who remains widely unpopular”

The only answer is EXACTLY the answer Kamala gave. Basically that she is going to follow the tradition of a VP not criticizing her President, who she is a partner with. Doesn’t give press the distraction they want so badly want.

" identify one policy you would do differently from TSF "

Let me get this straight...
She is supposed to criticize her boss for having the strongest economy in the world.

Criticize him because Ukraine is still free...

Negotiating a border bill that the felon killed ...

That the american people don't like Biden is more an indictment of the hatchet job the MSM have done on him.

I could add in chips, infrastructure, and more but yeah...asshattery

except to outright ask her why a a n***er* like herself, is running for this office, and get their whoopin' and hollerin' MAGats to cheer in agreement to that question.

I bet if this were decades ago, they would give him accolades.

that vice presidents do not contradict their presidents, I remember one notable exception.
When President Biden was vice president Biden he came out in favor of marriage equality before either his president or the Democratic party was ready to endorse marriage equality. This was at great risk to his personal political career. I understand why the mainstream media chooses to ignore him making a stand for his values, but I'm very disappointed that we in the hoi-polloi have forgotten about it.

Consider looking deeper at this.

I.e., -

Q: Who spearheaded "DOMA" (Defense of Marriage Act) and "Don't Ask Don't Tell"?
A: President Bill Clinton (D)

At the time, it initiated a LGBTQ+ "transition" period which shouldn't have had to happen if this were a "just society", but it did. Because. Homophobic Society.

Fast-forward to the next Democratic President who now needed to "transition" from Clinton's perspective, to push for an open embrace of ALL. And this is still with a society that even today, continues to be virulently homophobic.

What "played out" with Obama, with the help of Biden, was to allow the public to take the next step and "travel on that journey" with Obama to the "acceptance" that everyone IS and should always be created equal.

of their way to separate Gore from Clinton, a twice elected president who became more popular after the travesty of his impeachment? How did that separation turn out?

won the popular vote, and would have won the electoral college if the supreme court hadn't decided that they should choose the president. And Gore getting more votes in Florida was in spite of the Republicans disenfranchising thousands of voters through their scheme paying a private company to generate a list of supposed felons.

Still, I would place trying to distance a vice president running for president in a different category than a vice president who was simply upholding his values with no political upside to be gained.

Liebermann was the Manchin/Sinema of his day who gratified his wife's employer, Big Pharma, by sabotaging the ACA while it was being negotiated through Congress. He successfully killed the public option to preserve the corporate cash trough and was the voice of the “Moral Majority” throughout the entire Lewinsky scandal. Gore picked him in an attempt to pacify the Christianist right of his day, and Liebermann repayed him by accusing the Democratic party of trying to suppress the votes of overseas military members during the uproar over the recounts. Gore is a great man who has been buried in so much corporate media slime I don’t know how history will ever find him. His electoral defenestration set the pattern for the media ever since. Catapult the propaganda, as Bush the Lesser blurted out one fine day!

but the "butterfly ballot" fiasco, Jeb Bush's efforts to make it harder to vote, and the Brooks Brothers riot all made the Supreme Court the final arbitrator there. But Lieberman was adamant that Clinton should be largely scorned by the campaign, sidelining one of the most effective campaign speakers the party ever produced.

Would Clinton have countered the Nader dumbasses in New Hampshire and helped out in straightening out the mess in Florida? Would selecting Bob Graham as VP instead of the insufferable Lieberman been the way to go? Probably, but we will never know.

But separating the Gore campaign from the Clinton presidency didn't feel right then, and still confounds me to this day.

Privately, when the child isn't around, voice your disagreements.

Why she has to answer this pithy, idiotic questions from an in-the-tank media bothers the shit out of me! They are laser focused on getting that orange POS back in the White House.

Biden unpopular polls?

Why is it never Trump unpopular polls?

All legislation and policies represent a collective effort of the executive and legislative leaders. Nobody gets everything they want. Nobody avoids some things they don't want. Saying what you would have "done differently from the president" wishes away all the context and compromise that is inevitable in the real world. When Kamala is president she will deal with a different legislative body and a fresh set of facts on the ground. It's relevant to ask what principles will guide her but her policies and agenda will vary wildly according to who controls the legislative bodies.

that's why they call them "Vice Presidents". Also, I'm sure Vice President Biden did not criticize President Obama.

came across as an 'alpha wannabe' dick.

That's what I thought. One of those bigger men that leans in when asking a shorter person a question, possibly to intimidate. Seems like an 'alpha' male thing.

Kamala can praise Joe for the accomplishments of the administration, but explain as President her priorities will be different in specific ways in order to engage the segment of the electorate wanting change.

I'm pretty sanguine at her following human nature.

He's providing information in that book that Jack Smith is using against Chump in the January 6th trial evidence.

I love the irony of this. Maybe after all is said and done, the "Hang Mike Pence!" victim turns it around and it becomes "Hang Donald Chump!" on his testimony.

I realize this has nothing to do with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, but the point is that the VP is always important, even when he or she is silent and in the background.

insurrectionist freak show - not good.

When an interviewer in the media asks Kamala why she has not done this or that since she has been in office the last several years, I think that she should point out that she has been the Vice President and not the President. It is the President is who is in charge, not the Vice President. She should take partial credit for all of the good things that the Biden Administration has done. Yet, she should also stop the gotcha questions from folks like those at Fox who keep focusing on the talking point that Kamala should have done more since she was in the Biden Administration.

She could remain loyal to Joe Biden and be rightfully proud of her part in the Administration, but she should point out that she was the Vice President, not the President, and that a Kamala Harris Presidency will not be a continuation of the Biden Administration. It will be its own thing. Kamala Harris will chart her own course as President. We should stop all of the gotcha media who keep saying that she has not done enough in the past Biden Administration. She has served well as VP, but her role was to support Joe Biden, not to be in charge. And she did well at that. A Kamala Harris Administration will have its own strengths and character. Kamala will chart her own course once she is fully in charge as President. So we should stop that particular gotcha question in its tracks.

that Biden is out of the race.