Doubts About Biden's Fitness for Office: Senators Express Concerns After Poor Debate Performance

Atlanta, Georgia, USA United States of America
Biden's debate performance was widely panned, with some major Democratic donors discussing removing him from the ticket against his will and replacing him at the Democratic National Convention.
Despite these concerns, former President Donald J. Trump has outraised Biden in each of the last two months.
Doubts about President Joe Biden's fitness for office have surfaced among members of his own party following his recent debate performance.
Representative Ro Khanna urged Biden to make a clear assessment on the damage done to his candidacy and figure out how to move forward in a winning campaign.
Senators Peter Welch and Jared Huffman expressed concerns about Biden's viability as a candidate.
Doubts About Biden's Fitness for Office: Senators Express Concerns After Poor Debate Performance

In a stunning turn of events, doubts about President Joe Biden's fitness for office have surfaced among members of his own party following his recent debate performance. Senators Peter Welch and Jared Huffman, neither of whom are known critics of Biden, expressed concerns about his viability as a candidate after the debate. Representative Ro Khanna urged Biden and his advisers to make a clear assessment on the damage done to his candidacy and figure out how to move forward in a winning campaign. Congressional Democrats remain reluctant to call on Biden to withdraw from the race due to uncertainty about who could replace him effectively.

Biden's debate performance was widely panned, with some major Democratic donors discussing removing him from the ticket against his will and replacing him at the Democratic National Convention. Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, among others, were contacting Jill Biden to persuade her husband not to run. A Silicon Valley donor who had planned to host an intimate fund-raiser featuring Mr. Biden decided not to go through with the gathering because of the debate performance. Another major California donor left a debate watch party early and described it as 'utter disaster'.

Despite these concerns, former President Donald J. Trump has outraised Biden in each of the last two months, erasing his once gaping financial advantage. The crisis in the donor class comes at a crucial moment for Biden's campaign as he faces reelection.

In an internal discussion before the debate, Dr. Jill Biden assured party donors that her husband was prepared and ready to go. However, Joe Biden appeared unprepared and struggled to articulate his arguments during the debate, stammering and staring blankly at times. The debacle was described as 'a disaster' by even Biden's closest allies.

President Biden's decision to run for a second term was made alone, with input from a small group of lifelong loyalists including Dr. Jill Biden, his younger sister Valerie Biden, and 85-year-old Ted Kaufman. This tight inner circle will ultimately decide whether or not Biden will step aside following the debacle.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

81%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if the concerns expressed by senators and donors are representative of the wider Democratic party.
  • The article does not provide any concrete evidence of Biden's unpreparedness during the debate.
  • The article mentions discussions about removing Biden from the ticket, but it is uncertain if these discussions have led to any action.

Sources

72%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Major Democratic Donors Ask Themselves: What to Do About Biden?

The New York Times Theodore Schleifer, Saturday, 29 June 2024 09:04
  • Unique Points
    • Discussions took place about removing Biden from the ticket against his will and replacing him at the Democratic National Convention.
    • Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, among others, were contacting Jill Biden to persuade her husband not to run.
    • A Silicon Valley donor decided not to host a fundraiser featuring Biden due to the debate performance.
    • Another major California donor left a debate watch party early and described it as 'utter disaster'
  • Accuracy
    • President Biden's campaign announced $14 million in online donations after the debate.
    • ,
  • Deception (10%)
    The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the authors' position about wealthy Democrats being alarmed by Biden's debate performance and considering interventions. It also uses emotional manipulation by describing the situation as a 'possible catastrophe' and quoting a donor who called it 'Utter disaster'. Furthermore, there is sensationalism in the title which implies that something drastic is happening within the Democratic Party regarding Biden.
    • Some floated interventions and wondered about how to reach Jill Biden...
    • Thank you for your patience while we verify access...Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
    • The crisis in the donor class could not come at a worse moment for Mr. Biden...
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains several instances of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The authors describe the situation as a 'possible catastrophe' and quote a donor describing the debate performance as 'utter disaster'. They also mention that some wealthy Democrats are calling, texting, and emailing each other about reaching Jill Biden to persuade her husband not to run. This is an appeal to authority fallacy as the authors are reporting on what these individuals are saying without providing any evidence or context that would support the validity of their statements.
    • The donors wondered about whom in the Biden fold they could contact to reach Jill Biden, according to a person familiar with the conversations.
    • A Silicon Valley donor who had planned to host an intimate fund-raiser featuring Mr. Biden this summer decided not to go through with the gathering because of the debate.
    • In group chats and hushed discussions, some wealthy Democrats floated interventions, others hoped Mr. Biden would have an epiphany and decide to exit on his own, and still more strategized about steering dollars to down-ballot candidates.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

55%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Behind the Curtain: Biden oligarchy will decide fate

Axios News Site: https://www.axios.com/2024/01-30/prior-authorization-gap-insurer-drug-decisions Mike Allen,Jim Saturday, 29 June 2024 14:32
  • Unique Points
    • President Biden's decision to run for a second term was made alone, with input from a small group of lifelong loyalists including Dr. Jill Biden, his younger sister Valerie Biden, and 85-year-old Ted Kaufman.
  • Accuracy
    • ]President Biden's decision to run for a second term was made alone, with input from a small group of lifelong loyalists including Dr. Jill Biden, his younger sister Valerie Biden, and 85-year-old Ted Kaufman.[
    • Biden allies believe he has a better chance of beating former President Trump than Vice President Harris in the upcoming election.
    • Democratic congressional leaders are expressing concern to the White House about potential losses in November if Biden stays in the race due to his poor debate performance.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by implying that the only reason Biden is still in the presidency is due to a small group of 'lifelong loyalists' who are keeping him in power. The article also engages in selective reporting by focusing on this small group of people and ignoring any other potential factors or voices within the Democratic Party. Additionally, there are several instances of sensationalism, such as the use of phrases like 'governing oligarchy' and 'kitchen cabinet operates as an extended family, council of elders.'
    • Forget the pundits. Ignore New York Times editorials and columnists. Tune out people popping off on X.
    • Behind the scenes: If Biden stays in, it’s for the same reason he decided to run again: He and the oligarchy believe he has a much better chance of beating former President Trump than Vice President Harris does.
    • These allies alone hold sway over decisions big and small in Biden’s life and presidency.
    • The president engaged in no organized process outside his family in deciding to run for a second term, the N.Y. Times’ Peter Baker reports.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states 'These allies privately think Harris would struggle to pull moderate and swing voters, and would enhance Trump’s chances.' This is an unjustified claim made by anonymous sources without any evidence provided. Additionally, there are instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as 'utter f***ing disaster' and 'an absolute truth about where he is.' These phrases do not add any value to the analysis and only serve to inflame emotions.
    • These allies privately think Harris would struggle to pull moderate and swing voters, and would enhance Trump’s chances.
    • It’s an utter f***ing disaster that has to be addressed.
  • Bias (5%)
    The article describes a 'governing oligarchy' that holds sway over decisions in Biden's life and presidency. This language implies a negative bias towards the idea of a small group of people having too much power and making decisions behind closed doors.
    • These allies alone hold sway over decisions big and small in Biden’s life and presidency.
      • This decades-long kitchen cabinet operates as an extended family, council of elders and governing oligarchy.
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      68%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Inside Joe Biden's Debate Disaster

      TIME Magazine Philip Elliott Saturday, 29 June 2024 14:45
      • Unique Points
        • Joe Biden had a debate with Donald Trump in Atlanta.
        • Biden appeared unprepared and struggled to articulate his arguments during the debate.
        • Biden stammered and stared blankly at times during the debate.
      • Accuracy
        • Biden appeared unprepared and struggled to articulate his arguments.
      • Deception (25%)
        The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author states that 'fact check: false' before discussing Biden's debate performance, but does not provide any context or explanation for this fact check. This is an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions by implying that there is something wrong with Biden without providing any evidence. Additionally, the author quotes a Democratic fundraiser expressing panic and distress about Biden's debate performance, which is selective reporting as it only presents one perspective on the situation. The article does not disclose any sources.
        • Across the room another sent along something of a distress call and a hostage video at once: ‘This won’t be as bad for voters as it is for us, right?’
        • fact check: false.
      • Fallacies (85%)
        The author makes a factual error in the article by stating that 'Fact check: false. Before midnight, Joe Biden would slog through 90 minutes of a debate against Trump that even Biden’s closest allies privately admitted was a disaster.' However, the author does not provide any evidence or citation to support this claim. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy as the author is claiming that Biden's allies made this admission without providing any proof or evidence.
        • Fact check: false. Before midnight, Joe Biden would slog through 90 minutes of a debate against Trump that even Biden’s closest allies privately admitted was a disaster.
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      80%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Democrats’ Doubts About Biden Are Growing

      The Atlantic Magazine Russell Berman Saturday, 29 June 2024 12:35
      • Unique Points
        • Senators Peter Welch and Jared Huffman expressed concerns about President Biden’s fitness for office after his debate performance.
        • Neither Welch nor Huffman is a known critic of Biden, but they expressed doubts about his viability as a candidate.
        • Representative Ro Khanna urged Biden and his advisers to make a clear assessment on the damage done to his candidacy and figure out how to move forward in a winning campaign.
        • Congressional Democrats remained reluctant to call on Biden to withdraw from the race due to uncertainty about who could replace him effectively.
      • Accuracy
        • President Biden's campaign announced $14 million in online donations after the debate.
        • Discussions took place about removing Biden from the ticket against his will and replacing him at the Democratic National Convention.
        • Biden allies believe he has a better chance of beating former President Trump than Vice President Harris in the upcoming election.
      • Deception (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Fallacies (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication