Forget Vance. It’s •Trump• the Republicans should be talking about replacing if they want to win.
Why isn’t the MSM plastering their publications with speculation about Trump dropping out, lists of Republicans demanding he drop out, palace intrigue about him dropping out, op-eds chiding him for not dropping out, speculation that he could drop out any day, hand-wringing about how badly he’ll lose if he doesn’t drop out…etc? 
The press went full blast on Biden dropping out immediately after one debate where he seemed a bit sleep-deprived. But has Biden •ever• had a public appearance as disastrous as the one Trump just had?
So the press will be going full blast on Trump dropping out now, right?
Reputable news outlets are obviously neutral and objective, right? That means the same objective standards for all politicians!
There are Republican officials endorsing Harris now! How many Democratic officials endorsed Trump before, say, the NYT called for Biden to drop out? Oh, that’s right: zero! So obviously now they need to go in depth on the possibility of Trump dropping out. That’s just balanced coverage.
Replies ask: Who would replace Trump? What other Republican could win nationally? What other Republican could possibly unite the party?!
Hey folks, guess what: unless you’re a Republican, you don’t have to worry about it! The press had no answers when they called for Biden to drop out, and they don’t need any now to call from Trump to drop out!
“But wait,” the press cries, “no Republicans are actually calling for Trump to drop out!” Well not •publicly•, duh. But are you sure nobody’s wishing it in •private•? Really? I mean, come on.
Basically nobody in the establishment was publicly calling for Biden to drop out either, at least not when the press went after the idea like a kitten chasing a laser pointer. Good news: that doesn’t need to stop you! You can endlessly •speculate• about it until somebody does come out of the woodwork!
Objective journalism means objective standards!
How far behind was Biden in the polls when the press started their broken record “Will Biden drop out??” coverage going day after day after day? (The answer is “mostly tied within the margin of error.”) So obviously when Trump trails by the same margin, the press has to give him the exact same treatment. Otherwise it’s imbalanced. That’s just science, isn’t it?
“But PAAAAAULL,” you cry, “none of that is how journalism works!”
Well gosh, that’s what I thought too about when the press was bird-dogging Biden, but apparently all this is exactly how the press works. That is unless of course they’re straight-up campaigning for Trump. But we all know the press would never!
In the interest of balance and journalistic integrity, I warmly encourage you to pester the crap out of your favorite US national news outlet about all of the above.
See, Jennifer Rubin gets it too (via @GottaLaff):
It seems emptywheel is also wondering when exactly the press will apply their objective, unbiased reporting principles and trumpet the many, many possibly hypothetical calls for Trump to drop out (via @wdlindsy):
“Outlets like the NYT have largely memory holed what a shit show [Trump’s press conference] was.
“In response to Joe Biden’s similarly awful performance at the debate, the NYT dedicated weeks to demanding he drop out.
“Not Trump.”
Amid cratering support, key Trump supporters call for campaign overhaul, privately pressure him to drop out
[…is the headline the NYT would print if they had consistent editorial standards]:
https://bird.makeup/users/davetroy/statuses/1821936003529015653
I am completely confident that the US press will now begin doling out the hacked material to the public piece by piece, keeping this story alive over a period of weeks and months, fostering all sorts of wild speculation about the internal corruption and sinister machinations of the Trump campaign while implying the campaign is incompetent and possibly in violation of the law for having been hacked — as we all know is standard journalistic practice in this situation:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/10/trump-campaign-hack-00173503
We now have confirmation that both the NYT and WaPo have received the hacked materials. That means the clock is ticking for them to follow their own precedent and start doling out the juicy tidbits as news. Neutrality demands it, after all!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/12/trump-hacking-documents-iran
Re the post upthread, Brian Beutler lays it out in embarrassingly (for the press) stark terms. Here’s what Dean Baquet of the NYT said in 2016:
“When we learn important things, to not publish is a political act. The calculation cannot be, we’re just not going to publish because that would screw up American politics. You know, at that point, I will go into business as like a campaign adviser to people and not as a journalist.”
But now…
Via @KimPerales:
https://toad.social/@KimPerales/112955020756990724
Meanwhile, behind closed doors inside the Republican Party, pressure grows for Trump to drop out
Presumably
And shouldn’t the press be frothing and speculating endlessly about it? Because that’s how journalism is done, apparently
Don’t tell me there isn’t a single person, not a one, somewhere in the Republican Party machine who’s privately wishing for a different candidate right now.
This is totally absent in press coverage: not hinted at, not murmured about, not quoted anonymously on background, not echoed by very serious columnists, not amplified, not manifested. And that contrast to 2 months ago is damning.
@inthehands The 2016 campaign was a lot of trump ranting about the mainstream media. He doesn't anymore. Seems he won that fight.