"I view my job as informing and educating" - that's why I'm here. I may have strong political opinions myself, but I do not regard this place as a forum for those. Here I'm looking for objectivity (as far as is possible, and it's never truly attainable) and information and that is what I get. And I like it very much! I get a bit dispirited at the overtly partisan comments here, but honestly, compared to other forums this place is a paragon of civility and thoughtfulness.
If not for the partisan comments, what sort of replies would be warranted on a sub such as this? Obviously yesterday's post about Male Friends and the post about Father In Law from months back are exceptions.....but otherwise....most posts will generate some sort of partisan to overtly partisan. It's a function of this type of expression and an outgrowth of the divisiveness we see in America.
Also, I'd be curious to hear about the Republican, Libertarian, Green Party candidates that you find palatable/electable in America? That seems to be a much shorter conversation and one that would not really engender much of a growth mindset substack. Am I wrong?
Anyhow, it goes without saying, that most of us are here bc we love the commentary, clarity and insightful thoughts from someone who's well versed in the beltway. And it truly is civil AF compared to any other forum out there.
You are doing what we pay you to do. Keeping us informed to what is going on in the political world. You know best. We follow you for your candor and expertise.
Following you since many years, Chris, I already knew “what you are doing here”. But this post finally gave me the nudge to become a paid subscriber. I love to support you and your brand of honest and objective journalism. You have been my go-to-guy since your WaPo days to become better informed regarding US politics and I really appreciate it. Hence the put my money where my mouth is.
How the fuck can an 80 year old’s age be a concern and a 77 year old’s age not be a concern? They are near identical ages. If we were talking 10 or 20 or more, we would be having a conversation. A legitimate conversation. Three years? They are essentially the same age. Ridiculous.
There's a difference between whether age *should be* a serious concern for voters and whether it *is* at this stage. Chris has addressed this point repeatedly. Even above, he notes that "Trump’s age — he is 77 and just three years younger than Biden — is NOT a major concern for voters." This is a statement based on what the polls us now.
To a certain extent, I suppose. But we can't chalk up the Biden age issue to a Fox News/Newsmax/One America Network creation when 69% of Democrats say Biden is too old to serve out a second term (per AP's late August poll).
As for the mainstream media or left-leaning outlets: I haven't seen any studies of how much they cover Biden's age or the influence that this coverage has. It may be a factor, sure. But are the media making something out of nothing? No. It's a fact that Biden is the oldest president in the country's history. It's a fact that he would be 86 at the end of a second term. There's evidence to suggest that his "physiological age" is at least catching up with his chronological age (to use Dr. Sanjay Gupta's term: https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/health/presidential-age-too-old/index.html).
I look at it this way: If the board of directors of a major corporation wanted to give an 82-year-old CEO a four-year contract extension, don't you think at least some board members and shareholders would ask whether that was a good idea? In fact, business media outlets frequently discuss CEO age, whether there should be mandatory retirement ages, etc.
On the whole, then, I think blaming the media for questions about Biden's age is (if you'll forgive the phrase) whistling past the graveyard.
While I agree that “the media” didn’t make up the age concerns out of whole cloth, I do question repeating that over and over again, particularly if nothing new is being added to the conversation.
That last is probably my biggest concern, and why I would continue to criticize Chris when he’s on that subject: if there’s been nothing new in the way of gaffes or aging “moments” and no new polls on the subject, why reinforce that?
I don’t expect Chris to be a partisan hack and that’s why he’s one of the few writing on Substack that I choose to pay for. He provides valuable insights, whether I like them or not. But that said, harping on the one substantive negative RE Biden doesn’t help and may indeed harm “American Democracy” insofar as it helps re-elect Trump.
It’s a fine line, and I’ll call lit out when I think the line’s been crossed.
And by the way there are plenty of 80 year old plus people who are far from has beens and over the hill. Warren Buffet 93, Bob Dylan 82. Mick Jagger 80, Ridley Scott 85, Michael Bloomberg 81. So we can talk about age like last cycle we talked about Biden stutter and gaffes, but we would serve the electorate better if we didn’t repeat without any serious push back on stupid, shallow poll results.
If DeSantis continued hammering his War Room's excerpt tweet of Trump verbal gaffes which were also echoed incessantly by Haley and Christie, there'd be a gradual consciousness among GOPers that the age issue cuts as negatively deep for Trump as for Biden.
And in the end, I'm sorry if Chris felt the brunt of this, but I feel that is where the real anst lies. That while Biden's gaffes seem on eternal loop, Trump's don't get near enough coverage. Though, in defense, I'd offer that Trump is voluminous in the amount of "reportable" items daily. There is simply not enough time to devote to the lunacy.
Just a few words in support of your approach. I greatly appreciate your writing for its balance and evenhandedness. I enjoy your unique sense of humor and style of writing. I'm very happy that you are writing this newsletter and I hope that it becomes ever more successful as time goes on.
To those unhappy with the agism analysis, think of it this way: We're a somewhat like minded group, hanging out in the local watering hole, hoping that our guy is going to win the next election. We've sent our friend Chris out into the world to gather intel and report back to us what is happening "out there". Now, do we want him to only report that it's rainbows and unicorns out there, and then we're crushed when our candidate loses? Or, do we want him to come back and report-honestly-"Hey folks, the electorate out there is really concerned with his age". Those are the facts. At that point we can continue to ignore the agism issue, and huddle in our watering hole together just hoping that our guy wins. Or, we can take that factual analysis and participate in discussions at other watering holes where we pitch the idea that the age thing is not an issue, and anyway, look at what he's accomplished, and what he intends to work on next term. I, for one, prefer to have my eyes opened to reality.
You keep doing what you’re doing, Chris. I don’t always agree with you. But I always read your essays. Even when I disagree, I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
There is no one else. You have a good center left democrat or orange Mussolini. Biden can't change his age. Go watch a WWII doc and explain to me why it was OK for the papers to ignore...him.
Hmmm, I'm not sure where my comment on yesterday's article falls in regards to this responding "rant." I agree with all that you said in your rant, am a longtime fan, and am not looking to live in a political echo chamber. However, I still feel like I missed an essential point in yesterday's article, or you are missing why some of us expressed frustration. If Biden had done something specific, or his team had, or there had been a leaked comment from his team, or anything new at all, I think many of us are here for your analysis and thoughts. It's literally what we pay for! But absent a specific impetus, and with not much of a different result than in previous articles (Biden's age is a real problem, yet he's the best bet for D's), it does feel a bit like whacking a Joe Biden piñata. So I'm still left wondering, what was the essential point or motivation for bringing it up again on the particular day of Tuesday, November 14? Without that information, some of us stress about the inherent difficulty in covering one traditional, reasonable presidential candidate as compared to one who is a literal threat to democracy and feeling like the world is missing the point.
I agree wholeheartedly. If there’s a new gaffe or moment of obvious aging, by all means cover it. If not, and the same conclusion is being reached, what’s the point?
Chris - first, thank you for being you. It is why most of us are here!
My sense is, in the vast majority of cases, the comments you receive are not intended to be about you personally, and are intended to be about the topic you are writing about. Nevertheless, because you write your personal thoughts and analysis on a topic, I am sure it is difficult to not take the comments personally.
My belief is, if someone writes a comment which is out of line - that is on them - not on you. As humans, we sometimes do not like to be faced with some truths or realities, and we react emotionally when our beliefs about those truths/realities are challenged.
I am here because you do not simply cater to my beliefs - I like that you challenge me to think about certain topic’s differently than I would or do otherwise, and to be reminded there are more than one side to a coin. If we do not take the time and make the effort to understand issues from different perspectives, then we cannot find appropriate and broadly accepted solutions to those issues.
Please keep being you, and writing about what YOU think is important - I am here to read about what YOU believe is critical to know, and not for you to tell me what I think is important.
BTW - nice way to work in the plug to get a discounted rate for an annual subscription - shows to me you are learning to sell - it worked(!) - I will extend my subscription today. But be careful - would hate to see you be labelled a “glad handed bull-shitter” (another name for salesman) as I am - I sense you are better off as a preeminent political writer, commentator and analyst...and we are as well.
Just my two cents - take it for whatever you think it is worth...
Thanks, Mike. I agree that people are surprisingly civil here. And I really value it. I just want people to know what I am about -- what I am trying to do and what I'm not.
I am not trying to be an advocate for any candidate or party. I thought that was important to say.
My thought is it because the issues you write about can mean a great deal to your readers, and in some cases, the issues are so important to them, any potential weaknesses can create fear, a strong emotion. Therefore, anytime something appears to weaken their faith in and/or attacks their belief in their desired outcome, it creates an emotional reaction, and as you know, when we, as humans, react emotionally, it sometimes can be messy.
This being said, I believe it is valuable and important for you to remind your readers what your objectives are from time-to-time, and I appreciate it. Thank you
Instead of shooting the messenger, Democrats need to quickly get better at improving their messaging. This has been a problem for decades, and it's mind-bending that they don't get it.
I look at yesterday's column as a clarion call, though it may not have been intended that way. Reminding Democrats that they have a problem that they must solve is doing a service to liberal democracy, not somehow undermining it. If they have a strategy, it's obviously not connecting with voters--that's not disputable.
Part of addressing their problem with voters has to be more effective counter-punching against Republican talking points. Republicans have abandoned substantive policy debates, so trying to counter their personal attacks and culture-war-fodder with wonky, policy-based talking points actually worsens Democrats' positions. To some degree, they're going to have to get in mud with Republicans and hammer the competency issues that Trump obviously exhibits. Again and again and again and again. Doing so isn't going to alienate the Democratic base, but it may get independent voters to ask themselves "What's worse: An old man who's in physical decline, but still seems like a good person, or another old guy who's also in physical decline, and is a delusional, deranged, wannabe strong-man?" Both choices are lousy--buy it's still an obvious choice to anyone who's not part of the MAGA cult.
Separate, but related: Once Trump announces a VP choice, this may become a VP-vs-VP choice for many undecided voters. They may just grow weary of the "Who's less competent" debate concerning the POTUS choices, and make their decision based on VPs. Wouldn't that be a crazy change from the past?
I think this is a good point. Whether or not YOU personally might think Biden's age is an issue, the truth is that data makes clear lots and lots of people believe it is.
And whether YOU believe that the media created all of this, it's an issue now that Biden has to find ways to deal with.
I would suggest by largely ignoring it, which is what the White House has done to date, they are hurting Biden not helping him.
I am sorry you had explain yourself. But it is good to put these ideals in print!!! :( I want all the things you are trying to do. That is why I pay to read you!! Thank you for thoughtful and honest commentary that doesn’t yield to ‘money’. ❤️
Chris - I so appreciate you and your excellent work! I became a paid subscriber because of your well-thought out writing, honesty, sense of humor, and authenticy (and the Friday Mailbag!!). Keep it up!
"I view my job as informing and educating" - that's why I'm here. I may have strong political opinions myself, but I do not regard this place as a forum for those. Here I'm looking for objectivity (as far as is possible, and it's never truly attainable) and information and that is what I get. And I like it very much! I get a bit dispirited at the overtly partisan comments here, but honestly, compared to other forums this place is a paragon of civility and thoughtfulness.
Richard, same.
If not for the partisan comments, what sort of replies would be warranted on a sub such as this? Obviously yesterday's post about Male Friends and the post about Father In Law from months back are exceptions.....but otherwise....most posts will generate some sort of partisan to overtly partisan. It's a function of this type of expression and an outgrowth of the divisiveness we see in America.
Also, I'd be curious to hear about the Republican, Libertarian, Green Party candidates that you find palatable/electable in America? That seems to be a much shorter conversation and one that would not really engender much of a growth mindset substack. Am I wrong?
Anyhow, it goes without saying, that most of us are here bc we love the commentary, clarity and insightful thoughts from someone who's well versed in the beltway. And it truly is civil AF compared to any other forum out there.
Paul that is good to know!
You are doing what we pay you to do. Keeping us informed to what is going on in the political world. You know best. We follow you for your candor and expertise.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Kelly. That really means a lot to me.
Following you since many years, Chris, I already knew “what you are doing here”. But this post finally gave me the nudge to become a paid subscriber. I love to support you and your brand of honest and objective journalism. You have been my go-to-guy since your WaPo days to become better informed regarding US politics and I really appreciate it. Hence the put my money where my mouth is.
Thank you so much. It really means a lot.
How the fuck can an 80 year old’s age be a concern and a 77 year old’s age not be a concern? They are near identical ages. If we were talking 10 or 20 or more, we would be having a conversation. A legitimate conversation. Three years? They are essentially the same age. Ridiculous.
There's a difference between whether age *should be* a serious concern for voters and whether it *is* at this stage. Chris has addressed this point repeatedly. Even above, he notes that "Trump’s age — he is 77 and just three years younger than Biden — is NOT a major concern for voters." This is a statement based on what the polls us now.
Weird? Yes. But also understandable, for reasons Chris laid out here: https://chriscillizza.substack.com/p/donald-trump-is-old-too. Trump's age could also become more of an issue over time.
These realities may not make us happy, but they are realities nonetheless, at least at this stage.
What Jed said.
But doesn't he news media that folks consume help to shape those realities that are reflected in polls?
To a certain extent, I suppose. But we can't chalk up the Biden age issue to a Fox News/Newsmax/One America Network creation when 69% of Democrats say Biden is too old to serve out a second term (per AP's late August poll).
As for the mainstream media or left-leaning outlets: I haven't seen any studies of how much they cover Biden's age or the influence that this coverage has. It may be a factor, sure. But are the media making something out of nothing? No. It's a fact that Biden is the oldest president in the country's history. It's a fact that he would be 86 at the end of a second term. There's evidence to suggest that his "physiological age" is at least catching up with his chronological age (to use Dr. Sanjay Gupta's term: https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/health/presidential-age-too-old/index.html).
I look at it this way: If the board of directors of a major corporation wanted to give an 82-year-old CEO a four-year contract extension, don't you think at least some board members and shareholders would ask whether that was a good idea? In fact, business media outlets frequently discuss CEO age, whether there should be mandatory retirement ages, etc.
On the whole, then, I think blaming the media for questions about Biden's age is (if you'll forgive the phrase) whistling past the graveyard.
While I agree that “the media” didn’t make up the age concerns out of whole cloth, I do question repeating that over and over again, particularly if nothing new is being added to the conversation.
That last is probably my biggest concern, and why I would continue to criticize Chris when he’s on that subject: if there’s been nothing new in the way of gaffes or aging “moments” and no new polls on the subject, why reinforce that?
I don’t expect Chris to be a partisan hack and that’s why he’s one of the few writing on Substack that I choose to pay for. He provides valuable insights, whether I like them or not. But that said, harping on the one substantive negative RE Biden doesn’t help and may indeed harm “American Democracy” insofar as it helps re-elect Trump.
It’s a fine line, and I’ll call lit out when I think the line’s been crossed.
And by the way there are plenty of 80 year old plus people who are far from has beens and over the hill. Warren Buffet 93, Bob Dylan 82. Mick Jagger 80, Ridley Scott 85, Michael Bloomberg 81. So we can talk about age like last cycle we talked about Biden stutter and gaffes, but we would serve the electorate better if we didn’t repeat without any serious push back on stupid, shallow poll results.
If DeSantis continued hammering his War Room's excerpt tweet of Trump verbal gaffes which were also echoed incessantly by Haley and Christie, there'd be a gradual consciousness among GOPers that the age issue cuts as negatively deep for Trump as for Biden.
AMEN to that Lisa!
And in the end, I'm sorry if Chris felt the brunt of this, but I feel that is where the real anst lies. That while Biden's gaffes seem on eternal loop, Trump's don't get near enough coverage. Though, in defense, I'd offer that Trump is voluminous in the amount of "reportable" items daily. There is simply not enough time to devote to the lunacy.
If and unless Trump's lunacy is challenged by his GOP nomination competitors, it'll be considered acceptable by GOP voters.
Just a few words in support of your approach. I greatly appreciate your writing for its balance and evenhandedness. I enjoy your unique sense of humor and style of writing. I'm very happy that you are writing this newsletter and I hope that it becomes ever more successful as time goes on.
Thanks William. I hope the newsletter keeps growing too!
To those unhappy with the agism analysis, think of it this way: We're a somewhat like minded group, hanging out in the local watering hole, hoping that our guy is going to win the next election. We've sent our friend Chris out into the world to gather intel and report back to us what is happening "out there". Now, do we want him to only report that it's rainbows and unicorns out there, and then we're crushed when our candidate loses? Or, do we want him to come back and report-honestly-"Hey folks, the electorate out there is really concerned with his age". Those are the facts. At that point we can continue to ignore the agism issue, and huddle in our watering hole together just hoping that our guy wins. Or, we can take that factual analysis and participate in discussions at other watering holes where we pitch the idea that the age thing is not an issue, and anyway, look at what he's accomplished, and what he intends to work on next term. I, for one, prefer to have my eyes opened to reality.
Well said, Andy.
You keep doing what you’re doing, Chris. I don’t always agree with you. But I always read your essays. Even when I disagree, I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
Thanks, Dennis!
There is no one else. You have a good center left democrat or orange Mussolini. Biden can't change his age. Go watch a WWII doc and explain to me why it was OK for the papers to ignore...him.
Hmmm, I'm not sure where my comment on yesterday's article falls in regards to this responding "rant." I agree with all that you said in your rant, am a longtime fan, and am not looking to live in a political echo chamber. However, I still feel like I missed an essential point in yesterday's article, or you are missing why some of us expressed frustration. If Biden had done something specific, or his team had, or there had been a leaked comment from his team, or anything new at all, I think many of us are here for your analysis and thoughts. It's literally what we pay for! But absent a specific impetus, and with not much of a different result than in previous articles (Biden's age is a real problem, yet he's the best bet for D's), it does feel a bit like whacking a Joe Biden piñata. So I'm still left wondering, what was the essential point or motivation for bringing it up again on the particular day of Tuesday, November 14? Without that information, some of us stress about the inherent difficulty in covering one traditional, reasonable presidential candidate as compared to one who is a literal threat to democracy and feeling like the world is missing the point.
I read Nate's piece and wanted to react to it. It's that simple.
Got it! Thank you!
I agree wholeheartedly. If there’s a new gaffe or moment of obvious aging, by all means cover it. If not, and the same conclusion is being reached, what’s the point?
Chris - first, thank you for being you. It is why most of us are here!
My sense is, in the vast majority of cases, the comments you receive are not intended to be about you personally, and are intended to be about the topic you are writing about. Nevertheless, because you write your personal thoughts and analysis on a topic, I am sure it is difficult to not take the comments personally.
My belief is, if someone writes a comment which is out of line - that is on them - not on you. As humans, we sometimes do not like to be faced with some truths or realities, and we react emotionally when our beliefs about those truths/realities are challenged.
I am here because you do not simply cater to my beliefs - I like that you challenge me to think about certain topic’s differently than I would or do otherwise, and to be reminded there are more than one side to a coin. If we do not take the time and make the effort to understand issues from different perspectives, then we cannot find appropriate and broadly accepted solutions to those issues.
Please keep being you, and writing about what YOU think is important - I am here to read about what YOU believe is critical to know, and not for you to tell me what I think is important.
BTW - nice way to work in the plug to get a discounted rate for an annual subscription - shows to me you are learning to sell - it worked(!) - I will extend my subscription today. But be careful - would hate to see you be labelled a “glad handed bull-shitter” (another name for salesman) as I am - I sense you are better off as a preeminent political writer, commentator and analyst...and we are as well.
Just my two cents - take it for whatever you think it is worth...
Thanks, Mike. I agree that people are surprisingly civil here. And I really value it. I just want people to know what I am about -- what I am trying to do and what I'm not.
I am not trying to be an advocate for any candidate or party. I thought that was important to say.
I sense most know exactly what you are about.
My thought is it because the issues you write about can mean a great deal to your readers, and in some cases, the issues are so important to them, any potential weaknesses can create fear, a strong emotion. Therefore, anytime something appears to weaken their faith in and/or attacks their belief in their desired outcome, it creates an emotional reaction, and as you know, when we, as humans, react emotionally, it sometimes can be messy.
This being said, I believe it is valuable and important for you to remind your readers what your objectives are from time-to-time, and I appreciate it. Thank you
Rats - I cannot extend because I am already a subscriber - I guess the joke was on me.
Regardless, please keep doing what you are doing - I love what you do and what you write even when I do not agree with you 😉 😂
Instead of shooting the messenger, Democrats need to quickly get better at improving their messaging. This has been a problem for decades, and it's mind-bending that they don't get it.
I look at yesterday's column as a clarion call, though it may not have been intended that way. Reminding Democrats that they have a problem that they must solve is doing a service to liberal democracy, not somehow undermining it. If they have a strategy, it's obviously not connecting with voters--that's not disputable.
Part of addressing their problem with voters has to be more effective counter-punching against Republican talking points. Republicans have abandoned substantive policy debates, so trying to counter their personal attacks and culture-war-fodder with wonky, policy-based talking points actually worsens Democrats' positions. To some degree, they're going to have to get in mud with Republicans and hammer the competency issues that Trump obviously exhibits. Again and again and again and again. Doing so isn't going to alienate the Democratic base, but it may get independent voters to ask themselves "What's worse: An old man who's in physical decline, but still seems like a good person, or another old guy who's also in physical decline, and is a delusional, deranged, wannabe strong-man?" Both choices are lousy--buy it's still an obvious choice to anyone who's not part of the MAGA cult.
Separate, but related: Once Trump announces a VP choice, this may become a VP-vs-VP choice for many undecided voters. They may just grow weary of the "Who's less competent" debate concerning the POTUS choices, and make their decision based on VPs. Wouldn't that be a crazy change from the past?
I think this is a good point. Whether or not YOU personally might think Biden's age is an issue, the truth is that data makes clear lots and lots of people believe it is.
And whether YOU believe that the media created all of this, it's an issue now that Biden has to find ways to deal with.
I would suggest by largely ignoring it, which is what the White House has done to date, they are hurting Biden not helping him.
I am sorry you had explain yourself. But it is good to put these ideals in print!!! :( I want all the things you are trying to do. That is why I pay to read you!! Thank you for thoughtful and honest commentary that doesn’t yield to ‘money’. ❤️
Thank you!
I'm 100% with Chris (and I am a paid subscriber, precisely because I want to support honest analysis, not mere confirmation of my own biases).
Thanks, Andy. I appreciate you.
Chris - I so appreciate you and your excellent work! I became a paid subscriber because of your well-thought out writing, honesty, sense of humor, and authenticy (and the Friday Mailbag!!). Keep it up!
Thank you! And thanks SO much for subscribing.
Ignoring an issue or saying that it should not matter will not make it go away
Not it will not
Hey Chris, as always, I look forward to your insight. Keep up the excellent work.
Thanks Mark!