Poll: Nearly 75% say Biden doesn't have cognitive health to serve as president post-debate

A new CBS News poll reveals that nearly three-quarters of voters doubt President Joe Biden's cognitive health and believe he should not be running for re-election, following a debate with former President Donald Trump. The poll shows increasing concerns within Biden's own party, while Trump maintains stronger support among Republicans. - According to a recent CBS News poll released Sunday, voter skepticism regarding President Joe Biden's fitness for office has significantly increased following his debate with former President Donald Trump. The poll, which surveyed 1,130 registered voters between June 28-29, 2024, indicates that nearly three-quarters of the electorate now question Biden's cognitive health. This sentiment has grown considerably, now including many Democrats, with 50% of Biden's own party members believing he should not be the nominee for the 2024 presidential race. -- https://mxmnews.com/article/5c5f9428-71d6-4a1e-a473-a433168cbeaa

Hee hee hee. Mxm "News" again. Totally fake poll that never took place. Note how David can NEVER cite an actual news source.

Wait.....isn't FACEBOOK an actual news source?   LMAO

Oh, dear...I probably missed my chance to vote since I blocked some "Suspected Scam" rings during those two days.

So...3/4 of 1,130 represents "nearly three quarters of "the electorate"?

That aside, note the weasel wording. That percentage, or whatever, supposedly "expressed doubts" about Biden's cognitive abilities. Davey Dog distorted that to "say Biden doesn't..." Davey Dog has learned how to distort reality from his MAGA masters.

One learns over time to examine all polls with a grain of skepticism. How a question is phrased can be crucial. In fact, the same question, asked of the same or a similar group, can elicit much different responses if the wording is changed. Likewise, who is polled, and when, makes a huge difference. The metrics used to gather a "representative sample" can be flawed. Reputable polling organizations make particular efforts to avoid sampling and/or questioning bias. Disreputable polling organizations make no such efforts.

I think that the reality is that only the MAGAs' minds are made up regarding Biden's cognitive fitness, but then, their minds were made up BEFORE the debate. For the remaining, not-insane portion of the populace, whatever doubts they may have had have increased. Me? I think he's old. Unfit for office? Perhaps. That would require much more expertise to evaluate than I could pretend to have.

But how many voters are going to switch to that awful liar, criminal, and bully Trump instead of Biden? Pretty much zero. In the end, that's all that matters.

CBS news (National) at 5:30 tonight posted a poll that said he fell to 28% of US doesn't think he should run.  Fell 9% points since the debate.  It came on right after the Rocket Mortgage golf tourney ended.  So not sure David is that far off actually.  

Yeah, but since 99.9% of the Republican respondents would say he doesn't have the needed cognitive health, no matter what, we have to discard their responses. Automatic responses are meaningless.

Therefore, among the meaningful responses, 56% (2 x 28) said that he wasn't mentally fit. That still sounds equivocal to me--56 to 44. And of course, the debate is still fresh in people's minds. It's not unlike the Cincinnati Bengals losing by five touchdowns on Monday Night Football, and on Tuesday, we take a poll: "How good or bad a team are the Bengals?" 98% will say, "THEY SUCK!!!!"

Is he in actuality cognitively fit? Yes, obviously. BUT...he's old, and may simply not be up to the rigors of the job. The same can be said of Trump, for that matter. 

My reply to David's post was tongue in cheek, which I guess didn't come across that way.   I meant it to be cute, funny.  Sorry. 

The Trump-Biden debate opened the floodgates for opinions pro and con about the performance of both candidates.  Lots of discussion here in KS, and that's great, except that nasty insults and "XYZ is going to vote for the devil incarnate" type of attacks discourage reasoned discussion.  It doesn't sway anyone the way the attacker hopes it will, yet they keep on.  Tiresome.

Remember the first Nixon-Kennedy debate. 1960?  First ever televised debates.  Nixon wasn't worried, had been VP, name recognition among other seeming advantages.  Kennedy, on the other hand, looked at everything; temperature of the room, the lighting, positioning of the cameras, his personal appearance/dress, wore the recommended studio makeup, small things he felt might give him an edge, came across much better that night.  Nixon had been sick from a knee injury that got infected, sidelined him from campaigning for a while.  He tried to catch up, was exhausted, had lost weight and looked ill.  Refused the studio makeup, perspired (blamed the lighting-hotter on him).  In the three subsequent debates he spified up, wore the makeup, came across better.  Some say that first debate lost Nixon the election, though of course it was more than that.  Imagine if they had LVA and the Kitchen Sink back then.  But of course there wasn't Internet, Facebook, etc. either.

Oh, well.

Candy

The question no one seems to bother asking is: was anything actually debated? Answer: not a goaddamn thing. It was not unlike the Miss America contest--let's see how everyone looks and talks. The actual substance was a tertiary consideration.

The following question of "Who would you rather have as president, an old man who lacks energy but is basically a good guy, or an evil, lying, bullying asshole who also happens to be a multiple felon?" is the only relevant one to ask now. Nothing that happened or could have happened during the debate would have changed that vast difference between the two candidates.

Or, you could simplify things even further. Does the character of the candidates matter? Apparently, it doesn't. But I think it did back in 1960.

        Takes 2 in order for there to be a debate. Presiden Trump was there and there was also a puppet present.