Biden seen as political corpse after debate sparks Democratic panic

Biden seen as political corpse after debate sparks Democratic panic

The scene was captured on camera: a woman guiding an older man off the stage by the arm while he stammered through answers. The presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was not a contest; for much of the subsequent analysis, it served as the political death certificate of the Democratic candidate for re-election. "I don't know about his life, but since last night's debate, he is officially a political corpse as the Democratic candidate," summarizes the thesis that peine the discussion. Democrats, adds the commentator, entered panic mode.

The first consequence drawn from the face-to-face meeting was not about the winner, but the loser. And the loser, according to the forming consensus, was not Trump.

Why was the debate interpreted as a sacrifice of Biden?

The most repeated thesis argues that Democrats improvised nothing. "Democrats have sacrificed their leader, the replacement is underway, all media already consider him written off," suggests one of the more developed interventions. The argument relies on calendar logic: a debate months before elections only makes sense if the goal is to wear down your own candidate to justify their substitution. If not, the implied conclusion is that the party is in worse shape mentally than its president.

There is a second reading, less conspiratorial and more operational: the debate served to prop up Trump with the electorate. Biden was already dropping out due to his health, and the debate merely made it public during prime time. The lingering question was not whether Biden should withdraw, but who would take his place. The diagnosis there was pessimistic: "if they put in Kamala, the result will be even worse."

The president's physical and mental state: what was seen and interpreted

The debate footage is particularly harsh on the president's image. It describes the First Lady congratulating him "like a kindergartner" for managing to answer questions amidst stammering. It speaks of a man reading teleprompters on left and right while being applauded, concluding: "there is no one in charge in his head anymore."

Not everyone bought the narrative of absolute disaster. A dissenting voice noted seeing part of the debate and felt Biden wasn't so bad: "he didn't soil himself, break his hip, or go sniffing children." However, this discrepancy remained a minority view against the chorus describing evident deterioration.

The most uncomfortable criticism was not against Biden, but those propping him up. "It's incredible that mainstream media have been covering for and shielding the puppet all this time," it is argued, adding that the scissors and cut strings arrived "when the fraud was fully exposed." The implicit question is why it took so long to say aloud what everyone now says.

The economic factor: recession, war, and the cost of sustaining the narrative

The issue was not read solely in electoral terms. Several interventions connect the candidate's weakness with the economic cycle. The hypothesis handled is that a recession is looming in the United States and Europe, and the ruling party prefers another to bear the crisis. "Either they want to lose, or people (those who truly rule) do not want to show their faces," it is proposed.

The link with Ukraine appears recurrently. It is argued that Europe is fed up with the war and this will bill governments supporting it. The most repeated prediction is that Trump will force Ukraine to sign a peace where Russia keeps everything it already has. The conclusion drawn is that the Democratic candidate is, at best, a dispensable piece on a board where decisions are made elsewhere.

The reading on actual control of power is the most cynical of the set. "Do you really believe Obama or Clinton made decisions? Or that Pedro Sánchez or Rajoy decided anything?" it asks, concluding that the president is malleable clay in the hands of interests not appearing on ballots.

The replacement: from the Kamala hypothesis to Clinton's shadow

The debate on the substitute quickly drifted into speculative territory. Vice President Kamala Harris appears as the natural option, but with the forecast that her candidacy would be even weaker. Another line suggests the replacement could be a figure with more reach, mentioning Hillary Clinton as a possible revenge candidate against Trump.

In that context, an unexpected element was introduced: Julian Assange's release. The hypothesis launched is that his exit might be related to emails Wikileaks decrypted which, according to this version, proved ISIS creation with Saudi and Qatari funding. "If so, how convenient and timely," it is noted. The connection remains suspicion, but feeds the feeling that the political calendar is moving for reasons not explained on television.

The underlying thesis: none of this is an election

The most skeptical current goes beyond the candidate. "I don't know how you keep swallowing the election topic. It doesn't matter what happens, you're terrified to believe it's all a pantomime," it is proposed. The response from the other side is economicist: what looks like theater from outside is rivers of public money changing hands toward the private sector, and citizens only see it if they pay attention to who, how, and under what pretext they are being robbed.

The historical parallel drawn is with Franklin D. Roosevelt: a deteriorated leader who completed the assigned task before dying, leaving behind consequences his country did not pay. The conclusion is that electoral processes function as choreography where the voter chooses the scenery, not the play.

The final disorienting data point comes not from an analyst, but an image: the First Lady congratulating the president of the supposed most powerful nation on Earth for having managed to answer all debate questions. All good, I suppose.