Joe Biden took to the stage at his Thursday night news conference with everything on the line – his presidency, his re-election hopes, his political life. If those were the stakes, he barely acknowledged them at the hour-long session to mark the end of a Nato summit, having earlier introduced Ukraine's President Zelensky as "President Putin" at a separate event. The news conference was his first unscripted appearance after a disastrous debate with his rival Donald Trump, leading to calls from several Democratic politicians and donors for him to drop out of the race for president. Mr Biden, 81, has faced continuous questions over his age and ability to serve another term, which intensified after the debate. But at the highly anticipated news conference, he dismissed the concerns about his campaign that were posed again and again by a room full of reporters, and promised that he was fighting not for his legacy, but to finish the job he started when he took office in 2021. “If I slow down and can’t get the job done, that’s a sign I shouldn’t be doing it,” he said. “But there’s no indication of that yet.” Depending on perspective, it was either a sign of dogged determination or of a man in denial about how dire his situation has become. Minutes after the news conference finished, several more Democratic members of Congress publicly called on Mr Biden to step down, joining at least a dozen other lawmakers in the president's own party who have done so. The question for Joe Biden's campaign is whether the floodgates will now open, or if the tide will hold. The situation will not be helped by two excruciating gaffes that will be remembered by anyone who watched. In his very first answer, he called his own Vice-President Kamala Harris "Vice-President Trump" – a painful faceplant in front of a national television audience. That came just an hour after another headline-grabbing mistake at a Nato event, when Mr Biden introduced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as "President Putin", prompting loud gasps in the audience.
He corrected the first verbal misstep involving Ukraine's leader quickly. The second one he didn’t catch, even as some reporters in the room murmured in surprise and several of his top Cabinet secretaries sat stone-faced in the front row of the audience. Those moments - the only major stumbles in an otherwise steady if not vigorous, appearance - will surely prompt nervous Democrats to wonder if there are more gaffes to come if the president presses ahead with his campaign. But for now at least, Mr Biden seemed the happy warrior, insisting he will push on. He laughed and smiled as he was peppered with questions, and said he could keep up with Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping, even if the hoarseness and cough that had been on display during his debate two weeks ago still appeared to linger. He again insisted he didn't need cognitive tests, telling reporters that if he even saw "two doctors or seven", his critics wouldn't be satisfied. The election campaign, he said, had barely started, and he again repeated that he was confident he could beat Donald Trump in November's election. The Democratic delegates who will back him officially as the party's nominee at next month's convention were free to change their minds as they pleased, he said, before mock whispering: "It's not going to happen." He said he would consider stepping aside if his staff gave him data that he couldn’t win, but that polls still show the race a dead heat. In that regard, he is on firm ground. An Ipsos survey released earlier on Thursday, for instance, had Mr Biden only one point behind his opponent – well within the margin of error. If there’s one thing that has been clear since the start of the year, support for the two candidates has remained remarkably stable despite unprecedented drama surrounding both men. Polling alone won’t calm the panic that has set in among many Democratic officials, however, and the storm clouds that linger around Biden’s campaign won’t be so easily dispelled. More Democratic politicians are waiting in the wings, according to reports, poised to announce their own break with the president, having waited until the conclusion of this Nato summit to voice their concerns. And that’s just the first round of tests for the embattled president. He has another high-profile sit-down interview, with NBC’s Lester Holt, on Monday. Donors are anxious, and earlier on Thursday several reports suggested that even figures in the president's own campaign were plotting ways to usher their candidate toward the exit. Despite all of this, Mr Biden made clear that it will be a challenging task to pry the nomination away from him. The 81-year-old man who at times gripped the lectern with two hands and insisted he was the "best-qualified person" to run the country is not going to exit the stage quietly.
I did watch, it was painful. Just as painful as watching the other guy who should also step down due the failing mental facilities. Yet no mention of how the other side is failing in the press. My point being the press is biased, and it’s getting worse everyday.
What is their bias??
That both presidential candidate are unfit for office?
And why are you acting like "the press" is a monolith?
Most importantly:
Why does Biden and his supporters sound more and more like trump every fucking day?
That part. That's what broke me. Ffs, if you must go militant, do it for the most good of most people who are also tired, without access to good food, health care at all, in most cases, and stable housing, not for less than the crumbs they used to throw us, when they actually saw us as a threat* to their very entrenched power. Make then earn the votes they seem to think they are entitled to, like they claim we think we are entitled to living wages, single payer, clean water, nutritious, decent food, clean air, homes, health care, time for adequate rest, recreation and taking care of personal responsibilities. Joe needs an 8 pm bedtime while most of us are running on empty, in every way.
You’re right, my generalization of the news we read is unfair, this article is at fault. A long time ago, reading newspapers, an article about a political candidate would normally have info on both candidates, showing contrast or similarities. I do not read many articles like that anymore, in this polarizing, “your on my team or against me” world. Equal representation and reporting time of the politicians under scrutiny is all I’m looking for.
As for your last question of why Biden supporters sound like Trump, I have no idea what you are talking about.
They're calling anyone not 100% loyal to Biden as a person republicans...
Have been for a while now
Used to just be voters, but they're saying it about NYT, Clooney, Dem politicians, literally anyone thats not 100% for Biden is no longer a Dem in their eyes.
You don't see how that would make someone think of trumpets?
Well, that’s not me, and that’s not my issue with this article. You should not pledge fealty to anyone, let alone a political candidate. But if you are going to write an article about a reason one candidate is unfit, you should contrast/compare the other candidates in that article as well, for good or bad.
Do you think there is any chance trump steps down because it's what best for the party?
Or that the republican party boots trump?
Like, seriously, you think there is the tiniest chance either of those happen?
And that we should waste valuable time asking for it an expecting anything to happen?
It’s about information. Giving people information is never a waste of time, they can do what they want with it. Who am I or you to say what will sway a voter? Are all these articles and rich actors talking about Biden going to change anything? Again, it’s not on you or I what people do with the information. Unbiased information is all I’m asking for. Not this “you’re with us or against us” bullshit.
This is Trump's third election... Four years ago, he was literally the fucking president...
And you think people don't know who he is?
That we need to constantly waste time reminding Dem voters who trump is?
Yes, we are fighting disinformation campaigns funded by foreign governments, we need true, unbiased, transparent, both sides compared/contrasted reporting as much as possible to fight it. Everyone needs to be reminded why we vote, at every election, not just the big ones, and this election is a shining example of why.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it… telling only one side in a story is not an accurate representation of history.
So everytime someone talks about Biden, they also have to talk about trump?
What about 3rd party? Do we have to talk about them too?
What about other options? Should we talk about the next best option for every party? Why just them? Why not the top 10 potential replacements for each party? Top 100?
Why aren't we talking about the domestic price of mangos on Tuesdays?
Insisting every time someone mentions Biden they also talk about trump just doesn't make any sense.
If that's honestly what you believe, then you're never going to accomplish anything. Everytime you're a part of a conversation you're just going to detract from the conversation.
So if that's what you're about. We're done here.
I’m not playing whataboutism games. I am talking about in the context of a political article, during an election cycle, about the politicians involved.
Interestingly enough, in your comment, you do what I am being accused of, therefore eliminating the argumentative ground you stand on. If this is what you are about, we are done here.
I mean. That's literally what you're doing...
If someone mentions Biden and not trump, you say
And you've just been arguing for Everytime someone mentions Biden, to talk about how bad trump is
That is literally what "what about ism" is...
It's literally in the name dawg, what aren't you understanding about this?
Nope, I have stated what I am saying, and do not believe I have been convoluted about it. Thank you for your opinion though.
This was your first comment...
Your response to an article about Biden, was "what about trump tho?"
Cool, you can selectively quote me. Congrats.
It was your entire comment...
The one you made to ask "what about trump" in response to this article about Biden...
And I had subsequent comments, in this thread even, that narrowed the scopes of my statements to political articles about political candidates during an election cycle. Do I need to go quote them for you?