83 Comments

"any dream of getting the Democratic nomination for President at the August 19th Democratic convention"

Actually, because Ohio requires a candidate to be officially nominated 90 days before the election to be on the ballot, the Democrats have planned a "virtual roll call" before August 7 to choose the nominee. The roll call at the convention in mid-August will be purely for show (so symbolic for this presidency).

So it will be only in the next four weeks that the Democratic nominee will be chosen.

Correction: Ohio approved a last minute measure to lift the deadline in exchange for prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing to state ballot initiatives

https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-biden-ohio-ballot-af8793cb7ab488bdba37f71d03a10f43

Expand full comment

That explains a lot. I was wondering why they chose to do the reveal at this time, instead of waiting till after the convention to sub in their ringer.

Expand full comment

I thought the DNC had already notified Ohio that Biden is the candidate? Meaning that it they change candidate they may forfeit Ohio.

Expand full comment

DNC can't notify Ohio until Biden is the official candidate, done through a roll call vote of the delegates.

I don't know how Ohio handles contingencies, like the candidate dropping out X days before the election. But this had been a problem before because the Democratic convention is usually in mid August

https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/07/01/ohio-dnc-biden-ballot

Expand full comment

The only presidential candidate who is a member of the gerontocracy, has a national following and, most importantly, has not lost his mind is Bernie Sanders. This option would be appalling to the DNC and the moneybags clique from whom they get their money and orders. But, if they fear Trump II, with his promise to be a dictator, then who but Sanders can they choose. Besides, Sanders has already given evidence of his partinost inclinations that they could dare to trust him with the big job. Of course, the moneybags clique would see this a class betrayal. But they do have to fear a Trump takes the revenge Presidency.

I'll vote for Stein in any case.

Expand full comment

Jill Stein looks to be just ignorant enough to sell us out to the climate change fascists.

Expand full comment

What climate change ge fascists?

Expand full comment

HUH?

Expand full comment

My money is on Michelle Obama. She has instant brand recognition. She is a Dem heroine. I believe her that she doesn't want to do it but maybe she'll feel she has no choice. She would comfortably beat Trump. (I'm not a fan of Dem politics, I just think those are the facts).

Expand full comment

Replacing a broken down geezer with another high mileage geezer, who has his own ideas, is not going to happen.

The DNC needs a younger sock puppet, someone who doesn't sound like an idiot (Harris), will follow orders, and can be marketed as a viable candidate: Gavin Newsome fits the mold.

Expand full comment

The DNC and its paymaster need someone who can win.

Expand full comment

Trump is going to give the Dems a high colonic.

Expand full comment

Maybe the only good thing about this "debate" debacle is that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that those accusing the nefarious legacy media of lying have been right all along. This really puts the big lie about Biden squarely in the face of those who have been clinging to excuses for denying what has been for a long time plainly visible.

Expand full comment

1. Not only did Team D and the MSM cover shamelessly for Biden, even though his senile dementia has been obvious for years, they smeared anyone who dared question the old halfwit's fitness for office.

2. "The President has extraordinary power, but the Constitution and tradition expect that it is the President, not some faceless underlings, who exercises power."

More importantly, now that even the MSM has admitted that Biden is senile and the Emperor Joseph is currently parading around buck naked in public, who has been running the country all this time? Who elected them? Who is exercising oversight? What oversight? Is there any practical oversight? It's not just the Constitution and tradition I am concerned with here.

No wonder this state of affairs suits the Blinkens and Sullivans just fine. They get plenary power and answer to nobody not even the voters.

Expand full comment

You made a typo, it’s falling UP THE STAIRS, not down. 😝😝

Expand full comment

I got Vaxxed five times: big mistake

Expand full comment

It would have to be a strange gravity to allow falling up.

Expand full comment

I think he's referring to the time when President Biden fell 3 times while going up the stairs to Air Force 1; or some jet. Not to be confused by falling off his bicycle or falling down on stage at a military graduation event.

Expand full comment

Falling required gravity and such is usually considered down.

Expand full comment

These are not normal times!

Expand full comment

When were times "normal?"

Expand full comment

Mid 2000’s?

Expand full comment
Jul 8·edited Jul 8

One can "fall down" ascending or descending stairs; it's a matter of no longer being erect which qualifies it as "falling down"...

Expand full comment

One cannot fall up with gravity pulling one down.

One always falls down in a gravitational field.

Expand full comment

You fail to comprehend my comment...I never said it is possible to "fall up"! Please re-read!

Expand full comment

Makes a lot of sense. Thank you again, although I will add a significant quibble:

You write:

"It encourages adversaries to mercilessly exploit the total leadership vacuum. "

This implies foreign enemies will make moves because the cognitive deficiencies of POTUS would deter the US from responding or from responding aggressively.

Given Biden cognitive problems during the continuing escalation during the Proxy War against Russia, the US has shown it will react aggressively, rather than being paralyzed by Biden's dotage. Decisions are being made, but, as you write, we can only guess by whom. The decisions appear somewhat internally consistent, even if they are far from leading to success (no matter how many times Biden, Kerby et al. repeat that "Putin has already lost the war" narrative.

Prudent enemies actually might be deterred in acting aggressively, given they can't be sure about who is pulling the strings in DC. I will paraphrase Putin, when asked whether he preferred Trump or Biden to win the next election:

Putin considers Biden to be a known entity, so he judged him preferable, on those grounds, compared to Trump.

Expand full comment

Happy July 4th Stephen... it may be the last for mankind. Biden has been mentally degraded for well over two years and I would argue at least three years. The country has been nose diving just fine along its disastrous path. My guess is, the incredibly incompetent Blinken/Sullivan have been running the show. So, I don't think the lame duck issue matters. No matter who takes over in January or sooner, the wars will be chugging along provided Israel does not attack hezbollah, the Phillipines do not get into a shooting match with China and Blinken/Sullivan don't do something stupid to escalate the war in Ukraine crossing Putin's red lines. Trump will appoint neocons to key positions.

Expand full comment

Signs of dementia were clear in 2019 and Biden's Dem primary rivals openly mocked him for it at the time. See Glen Greenwald's latest piece on this.

Expand full comment

Greenwald's great. Watch him all the time.

Expand full comment

Bently, I am very pro Trump, he stands up to the cabal, the uniparty, and calls them names, it’s so very much fun. But I’m afraid you are right, neocon ideology will dominate in his cabinet. However he will be very loath to go to war.

Expand full comment

Do you think the Democrats want a leftist? Or do they want a corporate yes man/woman who bows to the military industrial complex?

Expand full comment

Obviously, it is the latter. We have never had so extremely neoconservative a Government in both of its Parties as now.

Expand full comment

That’s true. The party that calls themselves “liberal” are more right wing than just about any other party throughout the world.

Expand full comment

They do love war

Expand full comment

During the 1930s & '40s, the neoconservatives (imperialistic fascists) in all countries were called "fascists" and "nazis" but now in America they are called "neocons" and there is no organized mass movement to defeat or destroy them. The billionaires who constitute the Deep State in (and donate the majority of funding to) both Parties have planned it this way and achieved it this way.

Expand full comment

They want both. Minority woman on the outside, MIC/WEF puppet on the inside. Really they want Niki Haley.

Expand full comment
Jul 5·edited Jul 5

God help us, please no

Expand full comment

corporate yes manwomanthey

Expand full comment

MF is right (by inference) corporate stooge is their plan.

Expand full comment

I might be right, but I have absolute worst initials.

Expand full comment

It’s edgy, you are an MF’er. That was your parents call anyways.

Expand full comment

When I initial a document, people think I’m cursing at them

Expand full comment

Go with it, lol

Expand full comment

Yes

Expand full comment

the best article I've seen on this topic

Expand full comment

A pity that the Dems didn’t give RFK a chance…

Expand full comment

“Those living in many parts of the world where there are active threats are left with extreme uncertainty and massive risk.” Point me to a provision in the US Constitution that makes this somehow my problem or responsibility?

Expand full comment

Good point but we do need safe passage for shipping; however, we don't need to be fighting Ukraine's war. Cash and carry arms only. We'll help as a deterrent but if you want to punch someone and hide behind our skirts - forget it.

Expand full comment

Not your problem at all ......unless you want support from those countries when you need it most.

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis , Stephen. I, too, am afraid of not having a leader that is all there mentally. If SHTF for the US, we need a strong and sure leader, not the university student council ruling the campus by committee. Our enemies know this and, surely, if they know that Biden is out to lunch and that Trump is sure to win in November, they're going to try to achieve their skullduggery before then.

Expand full comment
Jul 5·edited Jul 5

One question for me, is do DNC stakeholders want to keep Kamala, and if not, how do they get her out gracefully? She needs to be on board for 25th amendment process. If Biden family wants to stay, she can also just play it safe and humor them, since it's only a matter of time anyway, and her chances are arguably still better via the longshot of Biden being re-elected with her in tow. Vs herself at the top of the ticket. Plus she could well be left off a new ticket at the convention that would follow him resigning or being pushed out. But that calculus for her could change as polling evolves

Expand full comment

She needs a massive payoff. Maybe as much as a run in 2028.! Maybe as little as an ambassador post.) But she needs 4 years of therapy first so not to alienate the public with every word that comes out of her mouth.

Expand full comment

Re: 4 years of therapy - you'd think.... but then again, the bar is pretty low at the moment

Expand full comment

I believe you, and was not judging you. My tongue was in my cheek.

Expand full comment
author

I was going to say keep it there, but I thought better of the remark!

Expand full comment

I am a Curtis Yarvin fan, he argues that the Presidency has not mattered since FDR.

Notice how it is electability that has freaked out the dems and the media. The lying bastards could care less about his inability to do the job, and they, every one of them, have known for years that Joe is infirm. Is not that proof that the President is a figurehead. They are mad because now they look like the liars they are; Joe embarrassed them after they spent enormous amounts of their personal credibility standing up (lying) for him.

Expand full comment

Stephen, can you tell us what the discussions were about Reagan and the 25th amendment amongst the cabinet at the end of his presidency? There's a lot of talk right now about the First Lady and her actions. Was there similar talk about Mrs. Reagan at that time? Is there any comparison to be made between the mental health of President Reagan and President Biden? Another question, does having an impaired president make potential adversaries more bold or more cautions? In theory, adversaries have no way to predict what could come out of the White House at the moment. During the beginning of Trump's presidency, some spoke of how Trump's reputation as a crazy man would make adversaries more cautious. Could the same assumption be made now about a demented Biden? Finally, since the Chief of Staff in theory controls who gets in to see the President and actually puts the documents in front of him for the President to sign, is the Chief of Staff the most powerful person in the US, maybe the world, right now? How many people right now even know the name of the Chief of Staff?

Expand full comment
author

His name is Jeff Zients. I don't think he really is in charge.

Reagan's last two years were difficult as Mrs. Reagan played a significant role in shielding him. People noticed he was not the same, but it was never like Biden. Reagan also knew he was in decline because of the onset of Alzheimer's.

Expand full comment

I didn't realize it was two whole years. I guess another point is that Mrs. Reagan was just trying to get to the finish line, not trying to get the President re-elected to another term.

Expand full comment