Brandon Lets Go
“Great news!” you might have responded earlier this week upon learning that President Biden’s social media account had announced (on National Ice Cream Day) that he has decided not to run in the 2024 U.S. presidential election: those of you, at least, who would rather prevent elder abuse. About half an hour later, he endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him as the Democratic nominee. While initially unexplained, Biden’s decision surely stems from the obvious decline of his health and cognitive abilities—which somehow only became evident to the mainstream press during his disastrous 27 June debate with Donald Trump.
That evening, Biden performed so poorly that calls began the very next day for Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare him unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief, which Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) formalized in a resolution the following week.
The American people “must revere our elders and shelter them from unnecessary struggle and anguish,” said Higgins. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Certainly the news should come as some relief, given that the 2024 presidential race has already marked by escalating tensions—beyond those that come with political campaigns, I mean. Trump’s recent conviction on 34 felony charges spurred debates about political motivations and the integrity of the U.S. justice system. Soon after that, Biden’s son was convicted on three felony charges, and ongoing investigations into his foreign business dealings continue to cloud Biden’s administration. The attempted assassination of Trump at a campaign rally further intensified the political atmosphere, drawing sympathy for Trump and sparking conspiracy theories about deep state involvement.
Given these escalating tensions, we can assume that the relief of decreasing them was eagerly awaited: or, anyway, The Duran covered it within hours.
The pair discuss (at ~1:34) the role of donors in Biden’s decision, suggesting that they withheld funds from his campaign following his catastrophic performance, leaving him without financial resources—as well as the influence of former President Barack Obama, who is portrayed as the one who “made” Biden and now has “broken” him, implying that Obama undermined Biden and played a decisive role in his withdrawal.
The hosts go on (at ~2:40) to criticize Biden’s contradictory statements—in which he claims to have achieved great things as president while simultaneously announcing his withdrawal—while also noting Biden’s lack of explanation for his decision and his aforementioned failure to endorse Harris initially, suggesting that perhaps he was forced to back her against his will. Overall, they highlight the challenges the Democratic Party will face in justifying both their support for Biden and their necessary pivot to Harris.
The pair also speculate (at ~7:45) on the future of the Democratic Party, which they view as a collection of factions and clans fighting for power and patronage. Observing that the party has abandoned its traditional working-class base, which is now shifting towards the Republican Party, they question the prospects of a Harris candidacy, given her unpopularity and lack of primary victories.
Exploring (at ~10:38–12:21) the geopolitical implications of Biden’s withdrawal, they suggest that other nations will be concerned about the power vacuum in Washington and the potential for the outgoing administration to take drastic action and employ a scorched-earth policy. They also speculate that most of the world—with the exception of Europe, which has wedded itself to the Biden Administration and may therefore present a challenge—will hope for a Donald Trump presidency, as they seek stability and a leader who can provide coherent policies. Though they seem to remain hopeful about the prospects of a Donald Trump presidency and his potential policies on issues such as Ukraine, the Middle East, East Asia, Taiwan, and the global economy, Mercouris in particular expresses his alarm (at ~24:04) that the outgoing Biden Administration may take drastic actions in Ukraine or other conflicts to secure his legacy before leaving office.
That evening, Christoforou covered the story again on his own to add more thoughts (at ~1:22) about how the Democratic Party is lining up behind Harris while portraying Biden’s decision as putting the country ahead of himself out of integrity, using his withdrawal to drum up support and fundraising for Harris’ campaign.
Noting at the start of the video that Biden plans to speak to the nation this week, Christoforou goes on to question (at ~3:11) how Biden can remain president for the next few months if he is admitting that he is unable to campaign due to health or cognitive reasons. Accordingly, he suggests that the only way forward may be for Biden to step down and for Harris to become the incumbent president running in 2024.
Christoforou returned to the story the next day to discuss in further detail the circumstances of Biden’s withdrawal. Here, he questions (at ~0:35) the authenticity of the letter—noting that some commentators have observed that this letter’s signature doesn’t match previous examples, and that the letter doesn’t seem to have been written on official White House stationary—and the subsequent endorsement of Harris, analyzing the situation as a potential “coup” orchestrated by the Democratic establishment to remove Biden from power.
He goes on to speculate (at ~7:45) about the motives and strategies of various Democratic factions, including the Clintons, Obama, and Pelosi, in maneuvering to support or undermine Harris’ candidacy, and suggests that—despite appearances to the contrary—Obama may be playing a behind-the-scenes role in orchestrating these events, withholding his support to seem uninvolved while the Clintons have already offered their endorsement. After emphasizing once more the dangerous uncertainty (both domestic and international) characterizing this period of American politics, Christoforou advises the Democrats (at ~13:27) to encourage Harris to select a running mate who could become the party’s candidate in 2028, helping the party minimize losses in the 2024 election and potentially retain control of Congress while still nominally supporting Harris in her goal of becoming president.
A few hours after posting that Monday analysis, Christoforou reconvened with Mercouris on The Duran proper to give some more attention to the aforementioned Democratic factions.
Analyzing the support Harris has received from different factions within the party, including the Clinton and Obama camps, the pair first express obvious concerns about her electability against Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Their conversation then turns (at ~7:21) to the power dynamics and factional battles within the Democratic Party—particularly between the Clinton and Obama factions—and discuss how these factions are maneuvering to influence Harris’ campaign, potentially according to personal interests and rivalries. The duo goes on to explore (at ~16:37–21:34) potential strategies for the Democratic Party to navigate the upcoming election and position itself for the future. Notably, Mercouris strongly advises (at ~18:06) that Biden should step down from the presidency immediately to avoid further institutional anomalies and loss of authority. Failing that, however, the pair emphasize the importance of finding a strong vice-presidential candidate and the need for the party to project an image of unity beyond the 2024 election—which Mercouris estimates that the Democratic Party has “all but lost.”
They return (at ~25:49) to analyzing the potential geopolitical implications of the political turmoil in the U.S., discussing the reactions and concerns of countries like Germany, Russia, China, and others regarding the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. leadership and its ability to maintain stability and continuity in foreign policy and international relations.
But not everyone is as certain as Mercouris that the Harris campaign will be a sure loser—at least not the pollsters covered on The Kim Iversen Show later that evening.
Iversen expresses surprise and skepticism that Kamala Harris is being positioned as the potential Democratic nominee, citing her perceived unpopularity among both the general public and Democratic voters. Iversen claims that even loyal Democrats who would never vote for Donald Trump are messaging her with concerns about Harris’ chances of winning against Trump, noting that Harris is a disliked candidate—despite what headlines like “Trump faces a tighter race with Kamala Harris set to replace Biden, experts say” might imply. Accordingly, Iversen sees the Democratic establishment as trying to “gaslight” the public into believing she is a formidable challenger to Trump.
The host goes on to criticize (at ~5:14) the potential nomination process for Harris as undemocratic, claiming that the Democratic establishment is attempting to force her nomination without a proper primary or convention vote, currently pushing for a virtual roll call to nominate Harris and thereby denying voters and delegates the opportunity to have a say in the process. Iversen therefore alleges that the establishment is trying to avoid “chaos” at the convention from delegates who may not support Harris because, as she describes it (at ~9:29), the Democratic establishment wants Harris as the nominee because she is a malleable “puppet” candidate that they can control. Citing the vice president’s tendency to provide vague, non-committal answers during her 2020 campaign and her history of flip-flopping on positions as evidence that she can be easily influenced by her handlers, Iversen implies that the establishment wants a candidate they can manipulate, rather than one with a strong, independent vision.
But even if Harris’ vision were demonstrably independent, Iversen would likely still see her as problematic: she goes on to highlight (at ~12:44) several instances from Harris’ past that the author sees as problematic, including her record as a prosecutor in California and her performance during the 2020 Democratic primary debates, citing Tulsi Gabbard’s criticism of her prosecutorial record as a pivotal moment that significantly contributed to the decline of Harris’ 2020 campaign.
Iversen went on the next day to discuss reports that the vice president has succeeded in securing has secured enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee for president, despite her perceived unpopularity. Reiterating her skepticism about Harris’ ability to defeat Donald Trump, Iversen also analyzes a further poll suggesting that the candidate leads Trump by a slim margin, but questions the validity of these polls due to oversampling of Democrats: 426 of them, she reports, compared to 376 Republicans and 341 independents.
Of course, Iversen wasn’t the only one to doubt whether polls showing Harris with a lead over Trump truly reflected the popular sentiment, with Niko House doing the same in his analysis of coverage from MSNBC.
House cites how MSNBC’s polling averages show Biden has trailed Trump by 2% since the end of last summer—a concerning trend, given Biden’s consistent polling lead over Trump in 2020—which Biden’s poor debate performance in June didn’t dramatically. In House’s analysis, data showing Harris’ slightly better performance doesn’t suggest that Harris would be a significantly stronger candidate than Biden.
He expresses skepticism (at ~6:16) about recent efforts to portray Harris as a popular and viable candidate, dismissing the idea that Harris could galvanize support for the Democrats despite being portrayed as more popular than Biden, particularly among Black voters. However, he also touches (at ~14:37–16:51) on concerns about potential electoral manipulation, suggesting that while efforts may be made to “rig” the election in Harris’ favor, her lack of genuine popularity and support could make such efforts ineffective. Instead, he argues that Trump’s widespread popularity and the potential for collaborative efforts to challenge the results could undermine any attempts to manipulate the outcome, and suggest that Harris’ lack of a strong political network and influence could make it difficult for her to effectively contest the results if needed.
Of course, not everyone sees Harris as such a dead-end candidate. Gerald Celente of The Trends Journal suggests that Harris is likely to defeat Trump in the 2024 presidential election, barring any unforeseen events. He criticizes Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate, noting that Vance, from Ohio—a state Trump won easily in 2020—does not strategically bolster his chances. He predicts that Harris will gain strong support from women and Black voters, especially in key swing states, partly due to the Republican Party’s anti-abortion stance, though he emphasizes that economic issues and voter concerns about inflation will play a crucial role in the election outcome.
Celente offered further details on his electoral forecast in a video yesterday evening.
In Celente’s analysis, the Trump-Biden debates were scheduled early in the election season—in summer, rather than the traditional autumn schedule—to showcase Biden’s ineffectiveness in order to pave the way for Harris. While Celente lambasts Harris (at ~4:09) for the obvious hypocrisy of supporting vaccine mandates while advocating for abortion rights, he also criticizes Trump’s weak rhetoric on abortion—“state’s rights,” etc.—and predicts the Republican Party’s intransigence on the issue will cost it the election.
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the political landscape only becomes more turbulent and uncertain. President Biden’s recent withdrawal from the race and endorsement of Vice President Harris as the Democratic nominee have sparked a flurry of speculation and analysis. While some attempt to portray Harris as a capable successor, her perceived unpopularity and the Democratic Party’s internal divisions pose significant challenges—and it remains to be seen how the Democrats’ intra-party factions will influence the selection of Harris’ vice-presidential candidate.
Of course, Trump faces his own obstacles, including legal battles, assassination attempts, and the controversial and potentially ill-advised choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate. Meanwhile, Big Tech might help Harris through social engineering techniques, their use of which Dr. Robert Epstein has long documented. While the election’s outcome will likely hinge on economic concerns, we shouldn’t discount the possibility, mentioned above on The Duran, that the Biden Administration may take advantage of the situation to escalate its military conflict with Russia or other geopolitical adversaries before November.
Regardless of who emerges victorious, the coming election has already delivered on its promise to be a critical and contentious period in American politics, and we can surely expect far-reaching implications for both domestic and international affairs. Honestly, I’m already pretty tired of covering it, but I don’t think they’re gonna call it off, so stay tuned to Radio Free Pizza for further forensic analysis of this ongoing dumpster fire.