Is this newsletter going to be exclusively about how certain you are Biden is going to lose? Because I would really like to know so I can unsubscribe. This has become tedious in the extreme and when you've reached the point of using the term "Bidenistas" it's becoming farcical.
If Brian feels that replacing Biden on the ticket is the best path to victory he is obligated to use his platform to make that case. It’s the biggest issue in politics I don’t understand how “this has become tedious in the extreme” it’s literally all anyone is talking about.
I didn't pay for this newsletter to read what everybody is talking about. I can read Politico or Axios for free.
Beutler's made the point over and over again for the last two weeks since the Disastrous Debate™. It's beating a dead horse. Who is he trying to convince? Biden is the only one who is going to decide his role, and he has already. Saying people who are resigned to Biden as the nominee are akin to some sort of war faction of zealots is over-the-top, and a definite turn off for me, and drips with the irrationality he's proclaiming others to have.
I would assume you subscribed to get Brian’s perspective on the events everyone is talking about, seems to me you just don’t like that he doesn’t agree with you on this topic
“Biden has decided his role, and we must accept his judgment.”
No, even on the rulebook, he still needs the concurrence of the Convention before he can “decide his role.” He can decide to be the primary candidate with the majority of pledged delegates, but he does not get to decide alone whether he will be the Democratic Party candidate. W declared himself “the decider” and it’s still a soundbite because of how un-American the suggestion of him operating government on private whim was.
Who’s the last “I’m running for President, whether you like it or not” candidate? Hint: didn’t face a competitive primary either.
A lot of voters viscerally despise national candidates that nobody wants in an office except other politicians. Too often, when politicians stop worrying about significant primary challenges, they stop worrying about making a positive case to their own side for their policy; it’s immensely freeing, if you want to back a genocide in Gaza without any ability for your base to stop you.
(Disclaimer: internal politics are important to pay attention to, and be good at; the problem is when you draw party favorite Martha Coakley to run for Ted Kennedy’s seat.)
If you're going to quote me, can you at least quote what I say? I never said anything about accepting his judgment. You can disagree or fight it all you want. My issue is that this newsletter, which I do pay for, has become singular in its focus, and I let out a little frustration about the what I feel is the futility of Beutler's seeming goals. My bad. Ultimately that is not relevant to my original statement.
My apologies; you are absolutely right that it’s not fair, nice, or useful to put words in your mouth.
I chronically suck as a writer because I confuse what I’ve actually told the audience, and what I was planning to tell the audience. In my head, it was clear the narrator wasn’t saying that quote in your voice, but if I don’t distinguish the two, how would anyone tell the difference? Again, my apologies.
I think this newsletter has become mono-topic for two reasons:
First, not everyone is convinced the topic is closed yet, and for people who believe it’s open, it’s hard to do anything else, because “delay, delay, delay” will settle the question, if allowed.
Jen Psaki said (yesterday?) that Biden is not doing more press conferences and interviews because of “logistics” — Biden wants/needs several days of prep before such an event. That left my mouth hanging open, but it’s relevant to the mono-topic problem: if 1) Biden actually requires multi-day prep time before every unscripted interactive event, and 2) people think that’s disqualifying, then 3) those people haven’t received any actual new information about his ability since the debate. If Biden did press conferences on a Tuesday and Thursday, I think a lot of people would calm down. But a secondary issue is “I don’t have to listen to anybody else, I’m running” which means they won’t consent to a test Biden could easily fail.
Second, a lot of the disfunction we’re witnessing now — for example, the learned helplessness of elected officials, and a national Democratic Party so conflict-avoidant that we have to white-knuckle every election — has a lot of roots and callbacks to some of Brian’s previous work. I’d go back through the archives at Crooked but I think all of us have enough of a Cassandra complex not to want to.
Your writing seems fine to me. You made an error. I do it all the time (like replying to Beutler's piece in the first place.) And you make some very good points. Unfortunately, I was pretty much done with the topic after Biden decided and find the in-fighting futile and even counterproductive at this point. Whether I want Biden to be the nominee or not (and I am somewhat on the fence but lean towards him staying though I'd be kind of ecstatic to have Harris be the nominee if he did step down) I would just like some diversity in my political coverage.
You point out something here that does not get enough attention, which is that by their own metrics Biden’s campaign is failing badly, and is without a convincing plan to right the ship and not only regain lost ground but gain another 2 or 3 percentage points in national polls to ensure an electoral college win. He’s a good president, but a bad presidential candidate running an uninspired campaign, and ive yet to see anything that suggests that state of affairs is going to change for the better in the limited time we have left.
So this post clarified something else about the possible switch. Like most people, I don't even want to think about a new Trump presidency. But given the odds, we better plan for it as well. And one reason to swap in new, youthful, vigorous leadership now is so that the opposition has leaders then. There may be--as you note--a DC insider take that says, "hell, we're losing, let Biden take the blame." First of all, to hell with that horrible cynicism. We need to do everything possible we need to win. To my mind, that means staging a patriotic passing of the torch that jolts the race and electrifies the electorate. I think Kamala Harris makes the most sense (and has been killing it lately out on the trail). I think that might break open the dynamics of the race and allow us to win (and I also think, unfortunately, that Biden himself can't do that any more). Yet let's suppose either way we lose. We lose with Biden; we lose with Harris. I don't want to go into Trump's first 100 days -- February-March 1933 -- with a hapless and demoralized party that slowly succumbed under a worn and aging leader. I want to go into it with an energized opposition that has sharp attack lines and youthful leaders to lean on. I recognize that some cynical politicians in DC may want to load the blame on Biden and then contest for leadership themselves. But that's not where we want to be -- still fighting amongst ourselves as Project 2025 gets implemented. We will need strong spokespeople, clear national leaders. And all of our leaders right now are old (Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.) Do we really think that in February-March 2025 they will be able to rally opposition? We need to get our act together now. Don't get me wrong: my number 1 priority is winning and if Biden is the best shot at that, let's roll the dice. But if it's a jump ball, or if Harris or Shapiro or ... are better, then I think it's time to also be thinking about our posture in defeat. Because I'm not ready to give up on this country, and even doomsday has a day after to think about.
Thank you, very well said. Obviously winning is the goal, but short of that, there are better and worse ways to lose.
If we lose with Biden, I fear we will signal that we don’t really believe any of this stuff matters, and engender alienation and cynicism about politics, especially with young voters, that will be really hard to break.
"I don't want to go into Trump's first 100 days -- February-March 1933 -- with a hapless and demoralized party that slowly succumbed under a worn and aging leader."
This is all really well said. Given that losing seems uncomfortably likely, it is vital to think about HOW exactly the good guys lose, and what that means for the fight ahead.
I agree with the broad point but I think that, if we lose, whoever is at the head of the losing effort is going to be blamed and probably won't be in a position to lead the party. If we lose with Harris, my guess is that people will turn their backs on her. And that would be a real shame, because I agree, she's been doing a great job.
Thank you for this lengthy comparison of the McCain - Obama political face-off. You said "I dredge up all this not-so-ancient history because Democrats are in a similar bind today—no good options to choose from—and we’re called upon to be mindful of the risk of miscalculating."
Your choice of words "no good options to choose from" is entirely wrong. Biden has NOT lost his mind or his cognitive ability. The irresponsible behavior of our media (including you) - on any TV channel or communication method - only demeans and humiliates the great accomplishments of President Biden.
He saved our nation from the deadly spread of COVID, while Trump was recommending ingesting bleach. He passed the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law early in his presidency. The last quarter of 2020, our economy dropped 32.9% - the largest drop in our history. Due to Biden, we now have the fastest growing economy in the world. Under Trump, violence, murder, and hate crimes radically increased by 30%. (FBI Records) Biden has cut this number in half by securing historic investments in crime prevention. (Third Way, May, 2024) (FBI Reports for 2023) While Trump screamed about immigration, it is Biden who has secured our borders. More people are working than at any time in American history. Unemployment has been at 4% or lower for several years, including 3.4% in February of 2023. With Trump, the unemployment rate was 6.3% (FactCheck.org)
CNN's ineffective and deficient moderation of the presidential debate needs to be discussed. I would grade them a D- on this undertaking There was no effort to regulate the political discussion and refrain Trump from his disgusting and offensive fictional attacks aimed at President Biden. When faced with a bullying assault, Biden did what any smart person would - shut up and shut down. He didn't take the bait to fight and I would do the same thing.
I don't know if CNN started this cycle of attacks on President Biden's reaction to their useless moderation or to deflect attention from their own failure, but my recommendation would be to contact The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They regulate all "national and international communications through cable, radio, television, satellite and wire." (USA.gov) Write to them.
Your reference to President Biden as someone who is "not a good option," is a defeatist, pessimist, and fatalist attitude that does nothing to help our democracy survive. Instead, your "prophet of doom" attitude fabricates more harm.
For our freedom, our system of justice and laws, and our democracy to survive, we need President Joe Biden in the White House another four years. He has surrounded himself with smart and informed staff who will help him if the need arrives.
We're on the same team, some of us just think Biden has lost his ability to be the consistently effective candidate we need. It's not about his cognitive ability, it's about his deftness and energy in campaigning. The voters that Biden needs to win over had lots of doubts before the debate. They still do. Willing to bet they aren't reading this newsletter.
I like being in a party where it's still ok to have good-faith disagreements without being accused of disloyalty. I can only hope people who share your opinions will be ready to "fall in line" behind a new nominee if it should happen that we get one.
That’s always the test of the “they’re inevitable, fall in line” argument: would they accept the same argument for another candidate if circumstances change? (“If.”)
A lot of inevitability arguments in politics are formally circular: they actually do beg the question, in the technical sense. I wish people wouldn’t make those arguments, because if a candidate truly is inevitable, why are you arguing? Find a positive argument for them for the general, rather than trying to boss around your own coalition.
Calm down. You can flog a dead horse, but not only will they not win the race, they won't even make it back to the barn. All of the pearl clutching should be saved for the Right Turn coming, where Project 2025, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation comes for everything we hold dear. You speak of Biden as if he had some sacrosanct claim on the Oval Office. I do believe you are referring to that other guy. We gave Biden 4 years. We don't 'owe' him anything.
Just wondering how the idea to scuttle Biden works with the virtual roll call vote that has to happen by August 7th in order for Democratic nominee to be on the ballot in Ohio. Wouldn't Democrats have to decide on a replacement by August 7th? Are the geniuses calling for Biden to step down taking this into account?
I realize your comment was angrily sarcastic and not deeply thought through, but I'm sure that yes, professional political staffs in DC are taking this into account. I imagine we can all get through this difficult moment better without assuming that we armchair critics see obvious things full time professionals in DC don't. This is, I'm sure (for example), one reason why people are anxious for a clear plan and full answer from the Biden campaign, because time is of the essence.
One point I don’t see those supporting Biden’s continued candidacy being asked is what are the odds of him serving the entire four years? At his age a catastrophic health event is possible, as well as death. Kamala Harris would then be president. So a vote for Biden now is an implicit vote for Harris now. Thus replacing him with her now should not be seen as a radical move. Moreover, retiring now would give her incumbency status as well as unnumbered access to the Biden/Harris campaign funds.
The focus could then be placed where it belongs— on pro-Democracy;anti-authoritarianism, Trump’s unfitness for office;pro women’s autonomy; pro humane immigration policies; etc. etc. etc.
When asked how he would feel if he lost the election, Biden replied “I did my best”. He may feel okay with that, but it is the rest of the world who will have to live with the consequences.
I agree. They should’ve been building her up this whole time given Biden’s age. Then switching to her as nominee wouldn’t seem like such a radical move. It’s very clear that Biden can’t do this for 4 more years and there’s little discussion of that. It’s not motivating for those who are apathetic and less likely to vote. Kamala should already be treated as a co- nominee, not just VP.
Isn't that the inherent idea behind a vice president? I remember when McCain was running, I was for Obama, but didn't think it would be an absolute disaster if McCain won until Sarah Palin was on the ticket.
I hate my best guess, because it plays into stereotypes. It feels kind of archaic too, and it’s the kind of thing internal rivals would tell the press. But Jill Biden’s is frequently cited as the aide most locked into a “party elites can’t throw us off the ballot” position. Maybe that’s selection error, that being more visible, she’s getting personal blame a group deserves.
The press stays away from First Ladies — until they become important enough to report on as aides, when they seem to have agency independent of the President. Under all the character assassination of Hillary, the original complaint against her was “we didn’t vote for her; why does she seem to be running things?” Which is why Michelle Obama kept her head down. (Is this situation great? No.)
If Jill Biden is functioning as a political aide with “talk to the hand” rhetoric, it will be damaging to both electability and a second term. It implies he will have an unfireable aide with a lot of certainty about her judgement, who may be filtering who and what the President gets to see. She will be at his side as he declines, projecting her desires onto his.
Originally, Biden was pitched as a one-term president. It’s possible Biden decided to run again because the person he sleeps with thought it was a good idea. And if he decided in 2022 he was running again, why encourage party talk of a Harris ‘24 run by giving her a practical tutorial, the party wisdom he helped give Obama? Everything which would prop up Harris would be a reason to swap out Sleepy Joe.
Remember how Biden wanted his VP to always be the *last* person in the room, to help him make their final judgment on what happened in a meeting? So…is Harris complicit in Biden’s Gaza policy? Either she was there and did nothing, or Biden didn’t include her.
(This question would potentially be a criminal matter, but hey, Supreme Court to the rescue; Biden is absolutely immune from breaking both Congressional arms control limits and…treaties too? Which have the same force as the Constitution? I’m really surprised the dollar hasn’t taken more of a hit from international businesses.)
Had this been the W administration, the Vice President would have gotten ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY too.
(I still remember The Daily Show: Jon Stewart struggling to make it through something like “today….the vice-president…shot…a 76-year old man…in the face. [audience noise] What have I done to deserve such great material?”)
The problem with the argument is we don't know who will win: polling has been way off the last few cycles, and the media has created the dead zone shutting out dem wins for Biden's entire presidency. Plus the fact that they don't seem interested in Trump's unfitness. They've essentially created a nationwide information hole similar to CNN's lack of fact checking last week.
Chaos at the convention has meant Dems lose for over half a century. The only possible second pick is Harris who is already the Biden back stop. I think it foolhardy to want to tear up the biden candidacy in an atmosphere where most folks would vote for a shoebox to avoid the corruption of Trump.
More effective would be a mass cancelation of nytimes and washpo subscriptions to impose some accountability on their attempts to control the narrative.
I noticed that the timestamp on this piece is 6:25 A.M. I wonder if you would have posted thecsame argument at 6:25 P.M. Predident Biden’s speech yesterday afternoon was one of the best-constructed and mist-forcefully delivered stump speeches I can recall it hit all of the requirements:
• a strong case for Biden’s term one achievements bolstered by the latest strong economic news and the new NPS/PBS/Marist Poll showing him ahead
• a blistering attack on Trump’s record as a leader and businessman with attention to hid criminal convictions and adjudicated rape
• Biden’s first substantive takedown of Project 2025
• a clear set if “first 100 days” priorities for term two
The delivery was forceful. The crowd was fired up.
Yes, it wasn’t extemporaneous. It was read. But even so, he was sharp in responding to a pro-Palestinian interrupton. “This war must end.”
Seemed to me to take a lot if wind out of the Dump-Biden boom.
I look forward to whether you take this new information on board or wave it off.
If Biden decides to hand off the race to Harris, he'd be well advised to do it by stepping down and making her the incumbent, according to presidency-predictor Alan Lichtman, incumbency being an element favoring election. (Lichtman seems not to exclude months-long incumbency.) People dislike like his "age", but *do* like his accomplishments—he's been an outstanding president, from a Democrat point of view. My guess is this transfer would be especially fruitful if Harris devoutly and reverently pledged to carry on Biden's programs, as if he had died, thus replacing the body but not the résumé. The ticket would earn much goodwill if Biden said, on his way out, "We heard you. I disagree and it breaks my heart, but we're listening to you and we heard you."
I agree with this completely about the prospects for beating Trump. As Matt said on the podcast, variance is your friend when you are losing (i.e., if you are down by 12 in the NBA going into the fourth quarter, you need to jack up more three-point shots). My only question is whether switching candidates increases the expected number of House and Senate pick ups for the GOP? Variance may not be the friend of every Democratic House and Senate candidate after all
Following the analogy, if McCain had picked Lieberman rather than Palin, he still, almost certainly, would have lost, but would Dems have also picked up 8 senate seats?
I agree that this is a good question, and I don’t know the answer, but a couple of thoughts:
1. Frontline members seem like they would prefer Harris leading the ticket.
2. Anecdotally based on myself and my circle, a Biden-led ticket seems like it’s causing the lowest level of enthusiasm among center/left voters I’ve seen for a Presidential election I’ve seen since … probably 2000. I think a change could be a bolt of energy that could prevent catastrophically bad Dem turnout.
Bro, I love your work. It’s really thoughtful, displays your years of insider experience in politics, and proposes actionable remedies for the problems facing the only party supporting Democracy/Liberalism/Freedom. But I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about up top. There are no crooks, or frauds, or pranksters being mentioned at the top of the Democratic party.. This statement seriously irks me. Have a good weekend.
is it me. because i’m convinced Biden should step down. it remains an important topic. we need voices and thoughts focused on the topic. it adds pressure to a campaign that is unable to accept Biden no longer has the stamina to win this one.
That picture!? I did a double take then a triple take. The guy on the left is clearly John McCain, which makes sense given the article. You would say the guy on the right must be Joe Biden but that didn't immediately register. My first thought was a white haired Mitt Romney? Weird!! Did anyone else have that take? Is the choice of the picture some cosmic, karmic opening through the looking glass? Is there some unknown movement to draft Mitt so he can say something like "well I was just waiting to see if the GOP would draft me as a last minute replacement for Trump but since that ain't happening I FINALLY decided to come out as voting for Biden but then I thought hey I kind of look like Biden... so...???
Is this newsletter going to be exclusively about how certain you are Biden is going to lose? Because I would really like to know so I can unsubscribe. This has become tedious in the extreme and when you've reached the point of using the term "Bidenistas" it's becoming farcical.
If Brian feels that replacing Biden on the ticket is the best path to victory he is obligated to use his platform to make that case. It’s the biggest issue in politics I don’t understand how “this has become tedious in the extreme” it’s literally all anyone is talking about.
I didn't pay for this newsletter to read what everybody is talking about. I can read Politico or Axios for free.
Beutler's made the point over and over again for the last two weeks since the Disastrous Debate™. It's beating a dead horse. Who is he trying to convince? Biden is the only one who is going to decide his role, and he has already. Saying people who are resigned to Biden as the nominee are akin to some sort of war faction of zealots is over-the-top, and a definite turn off for me, and drips with the irrationality he's proclaiming others to have.
I would assume you subscribed to get Brian’s perspective on the events everyone is talking about, seems to me you just don’t like that he doesn’t agree with you on this topic
“Biden has decided his role, and we must accept his judgment.”
No, even on the rulebook, he still needs the concurrence of the Convention before he can “decide his role.” He can decide to be the primary candidate with the majority of pledged delegates, but he does not get to decide alone whether he will be the Democratic Party candidate. W declared himself “the decider” and it’s still a soundbite because of how un-American the suggestion of him operating government on private whim was.
Who’s the last “I’m running for President, whether you like it or not” candidate? Hint: didn’t face a competitive primary either.
A lot of voters viscerally despise national candidates that nobody wants in an office except other politicians. Too often, when politicians stop worrying about significant primary challenges, they stop worrying about making a positive case to their own side for their policy; it’s immensely freeing, if you want to back a genocide in Gaza without any ability for your base to stop you.
(Disclaimer: internal politics are important to pay attention to, and be good at; the problem is when you draw party favorite Martha Coakley to run for Ted Kennedy’s seat.)
If you're going to quote me, can you at least quote what I say? I never said anything about accepting his judgment. You can disagree or fight it all you want. My issue is that this newsletter, which I do pay for, has become singular in its focus, and I let out a little frustration about the what I feel is the futility of Beutler's seeming goals. My bad. Ultimately that is not relevant to my original statement.
My apologies; you are absolutely right that it’s not fair, nice, or useful to put words in your mouth.
I chronically suck as a writer because I confuse what I’ve actually told the audience, and what I was planning to tell the audience. In my head, it was clear the narrator wasn’t saying that quote in your voice, but if I don’t distinguish the two, how would anyone tell the difference? Again, my apologies.
I think this newsletter has become mono-topic for two reasons:
First, not everyone is convinced the topic is closed yet, and for people who believe it’s open, it’s hard to do anything else, because “delay, delay, delay” will settle the question, if allowed.
Jen Psaki said (yesterday?) that Biden is not doing more press conferences and interviews because of “logistics” — Biden wants/needs several days of prep before such an event. That left my mouth hanging open, but it’s relevant to the mono-topic problem: if 1) Biden actually requires multi-day prep time before every unscripted interactive event, and 2) people think that’s disqualifying, then 3) those people haven’t received any actual new information about his ability since the debate. If Biden did press conferences on a Tuesday and Thursday, I think a lot of people would calm down. But a secondary issue is “I don’t have to listen to anybody else, I’m running” which means they won’t consent to a test Biden could easily fail.
Second, a lot of the disfunction we’re witnessing now — for example, the learned helplessness of elected officials, and a national Democratic Party so conflict-avoidant that we have to white-knuckle every election — has a lot of roots and callbacks to some of Brian’s previous work. I’d go back through the archives at Crooked but I think all of us have enough of a Cassandra complex not to want to.
Your writing seems fine to me. You made an error. I do it all the time (like replying to Beutler's piece in the first place.) And you make some very good points. Unfortunately, I was pretty much done with the topic after Biden decided and find the in-fighting futile and even counterproductive at this point. Whether I want Biden to be the nominee or not (and I am somewhat on the fence but lean towards him staying though I'd be kind of ecstatic to have Harris be the nominee if he did step down) I would just like some diversity in my political coverage.
I’d bet the newsletter will very likely un-monotopic in a couple weeks, since I haven’t seen Brian beat dead horses, just live ones.
Thank you Gilbert! Totally agree.
Bye.
You point out something here that does not get enough attention, which is that by their own metrics Biden’s campaign is failing badly, and is without a convincing plan to right the ship and not only regain lost ground but gain another 2 or 3 percentage points in national polls to ensure an electoral college win. He’s a good president, but a bad presidential candidate running an uninspired campaign, and ive yet to see anything that suggests that state of affairs is going to change for the better in the limited time we have left.
So this post clarified something else about the possible switch. Like most people, I don't even want to think about a new Trump presidency. But given the odds, we better plan for it as well. And one reason to swap in new, youthful, vigorous leadership now is so that the opposition has leaders then. There may be--as you note--a DC insider take that says, "hell, we're losing, let Biden take the blame." First of all, to hell with that horrible cynicism. We need to do everything possible we need to win. To my mind, that means staging a patriotic passing of the torch that jolts the race and electrifies the electorate. I think Kamala Harris makes the most sense (and has been killing it lately out on the trail). I think that might break open the dynamics of the race and allow us to win (and I also think, unfortunately, that Biden himself can't do that any more). Yet let's suppose either way we lose. We lose with Biden; we lose with Harris. I don't want to go into Trump's first 100 days -- February-March 1933 -- with a hapless and demoralized party that slowly succumbed under a worn and aging leader. I want to go into it with an energized opposition that has sharp attack lines and youthful leaders to lean on. I recognize that some cynical politicians in DC may want to load the blame on Biden and then contest for leadership themselves. But that's not where we want to be -- still fighting amongst ourselves as Project 2025 gets implemented. We will need strong spokespeople, clear national leaders. And all of our leaders right now are old (Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.) Do we really think that in February-March 2025 they will be able to rally opposition? We need to get our act together now. Don't get me wrong: my number 1 priority is winning and if Biden is the best shot at that, let's roll the dice. But if it's a jump ball, or if Harris or Shapiro or ... are better, then I think it's time to also be thinking about our posture in defeat. Because I'm not ready to give up on this country, and even doomsday has a day after to think about.
Thank you, very well said. Obviously winning is the goal, but short of that, there are better and worse ways to lose.
If we lose with Biden, I fear we will signal that we don’t really believe any of this stuff matters, and engender alienation and cynicism about politics, especially with young voters, that will be really hard to break.
"I don't want to go into Trump's first 100 days -- February-March 1933 -- with a hapless and demoralized party that slowly succumbed under a worn and aging leader."
This is all really well said. Given that losing seems uncomfortably likely, it is vital to think about HOW exactly the good guys lose, and what that means for the fight ahead.
I agree with the broad point but I think that, if we lose, whoever is at the head of the losing effort is going to be blamed and probably won't be in a position to lead the party. If we lose with Harris, my guess is that people will turn their backs on her. And that would be a real shame, because I agree, she's been doing a great job.
Whichever party loses this election stands a good chance of dissipating, I think.
Thank you for this lengthy comparison of the McCain - Obama political face-off. You said "I dredge up all this not-so-ancient history because Democrats are in a similar bind today—no good options to choose from—and we’re called upon to be mindful of the risk of miscalculating."
Your choice of words "no good options to choose from" is entirely wrong. Biden has NOT lost his mind or his cognitive ability. The irresponsible behavior of our media (including you) - on any TV channel or communication method - only demeans and humiliates the great accomplishments of President Biden.
He saved our nation from the deadly spread of COVID, while Trump was recommending ingesting bleach. He passed the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law early in his presidency. The last quarter of 2020, our economy dropped 32.9% - the largest drop in our history. Due to Biden, we now have the fastest growing economy in the world. Under Trump, violence, murder, and hate crimes radically increased by 30%. (FBI Records) Biden has cut this number in half by securing historic investments in crime prevention. (Third Way, May, 2024) (FBI Reports for 2023) While Trump screamed about immigration, it is Biden who has secured our borders. More people are working than at any time in American history. Unemployment has been at 4% or lower for several years, including 3.4% in February of 2023. With Trump, the unemployment rate was 6.3% (FactCheck.org)
CNN's ineffective and deficient moderation of the presidential debate needs to be discussed. I would grade them a D- on this undertaking There was no effort to regulate the political discussion and refrain Trump from his disgusting and offensive fictional attacks aimed at President Biden. When faced with a bullying assault, Biden did what any smart person would - shut up and shut down. He didn't take the bait to fight and I would do the same thing.
I don't know if CNN started this cycle of attacks on President Biden's reaction to their useless moderation or to deflect attention from their own failure, but my recommendation would be to contact The Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They regulate all "national and international communications through cable, radio, television, satellite and wire." (USA.gov) Write to them.
Your reference to President Biden as someone who is "not a good option," is a defeatist, pessimist, and fatalist attitude that does nothing to help our democracy survive. Instead, your "prophet of doom" attitude fabricates more harm.
For our freedom, our system of justice and laws, and our democracy to survive, we need President Joe Biden in the White House another four years. He has surrounded himself with smart and informed staff who will help him if the need arrives.
Elizabeth
From Democracy to Democrazy
We're on the same team, some of us just think Biden has lost his ability to be the consistently effective candidate we need. It's not about his cognitive ability, it's about his deftness and energy in campaigning. The voters that Biden needs to win over had lots of doubts before the debate. They still do. Willing to bet they aren't reading this newsletter.
I like being in a party where it's still ok to have good-faith disagreements without being accused of disloyalty. I can only hope people who share your opinions will be ready to "fall in line" behind a new nominee if it should happen that we get one.
That’s always the test of the “they’re inevitable, fall in line” argument: would they accept the same argument for another candidate if circumstances change? (“If.”)
A lot of inevitability arguments in politics are formally circular: they actually do beg the question, in the technical sense. I wish people wouldn’t make those arguments, because if a candidate truly is inevitable, why are you arguing? Find a positive argument for them for the general, rather than trying to boss around your own coalition.
Calm down. You can flog a dead horse, but not only will they not win the race, they won't even make it back to the barn. All of the pearl clutching should be saved for the Right Turn coming, where Project 2025, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation comes for everything we hold dear. You speak of Biden as if he had some sacrosanct claim on the Oval Office. I do believe you are referring to that other guy. We gave Biden 4 years. We don't 'owe' him anything.
Thank you Elizabeth!
In case anyone was wondering, 👆that’s a Bidenista.
Just wondering how the idea to scuttle Biden works with the virtual roll call vote that has to happen by August 7th in order for Democratic nominee to be on the ballot in Ohio. Wouldn't Democrats have to decide on a replacement by August 7th? Are the geniuses calling for Biden to step down taking this into account?
I realize your comment was angrily sarcastic and not deeply thought through, but I'm sure that yes, professional political staffs in DC are taking this into account. I imagine we can all get through this difficult moment better without assuming that we armchair critics see obvious things full time professionals in DC don't. This is, I'm sure (for example), one reason why people are anxious for a clear plan and full answer from the Biden campaign, because time is of the essence.
I don't have your confidence in the brilliance of the political consultant class based on the behavior I've seen in the last two weeks.
Ohio has changed the law. The convention nominee can be on the ballot.
Can you provide a link for this news? I'm not finding any stories on this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna154752
Thank you for the link. I gather that, despite this vote, Democrats still feel the need to hold the virtual roll call vote before the convention.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/10/politics/democrats-virtual-roll-call-biden/index.html
Yes, that’s the story. Seems unnecessary and weird.
A more in-depth explanation of the reasons for the virtual roll call:
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidpepper/p/no-good-deed?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4tfz3
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
One point I don’t see those supporting Biden’s continued candidacy being asked is what are the odds of him serving the entire four years? At his age a catastrophic health event is possible, as well as death. Kamala Harris would then be president. So a vote for Biden now is an implicit vote for Harris now. Thus replacing him with her now should not be seen as a radical move. Moreover, retiring now would give her incumbency status as well as unnumbered access to the Biden/Harris campaign funds.
The focus could then be placed where it belongs— on pro-Democracy;anti-authoritarianism, Trump’s unfitness for office;pro women’s autonomy; pro humane immigration policies; etc. etc. etc.
When asked how he would feel if he lost the election, Biden replied “I did my best”. He may feel okay with that, but it is the rest of the world who will have to live with the consequences.
I agree. They should’ve been building her up this whole time given Biden’s age. Then switching to her as nominee wouldn’t seem like such a radical move. It’s very clear that Biden can’t do this for 4 more years and there’s little discussion of that. It’s not motivating for those who are apathetic and less likely to vote. Kamala should already be treated as a co- nominee, not just VP.
Isn't that the inherent idea behind a vice president? I remember when McCain was running, I was for Obama, but didn't think it would be an absolute disaster if McCain won until Sarah Palin was on the ticket.
I hate my best guess, because it plays into stereotypes. It feels kind of archaic too, and it’s the kind of thing internal rivals would tell the press. But Jill Biden’s is frequently cited as the aide most locked into a “party elites can’t throw us off the ballot” position. Maybe that’s selection error, that being more visible, she’s getting personal blame a group deserves.
The press stays away from First Ladies — until they become important enough to report on as aides, when they seem to have agency independent of the President. Under all the character assassination of Hillary, the original complaint against her was “we didn’t vote for her; why does she seem to be running things?” Which is why Michelle Obama kept her head down. (Is this situation great? No.)
If Jill Biden is functioning as a political aide with “talk to the hand” rhetoric, it will be damaging to both electability and a second term. It implies he will have an unfireable aide with a lot of certainty about her judgement, who may be filtering who and what the President gets to see. She will be at his side as he declines, projecting her desires onto his.
Originally, Biden was pitched as a one-term president. It’s possible Biden decided to run again because the person he sleeps with thought it was a good idea. And if he decided in 2022 he was running again, why encourage party talk of a Harris ‘24 run by giving her a practical tutorial, the party wisdom he helped give Obama? Everything which would prop up Harris would be a reason to swap out Sleepy Joe.
Remember how Biden wanted his VP to always be the *last* person in the room, to help him make their final judgment on what happened in a meeting? So…is Harris complicit in Biden’s Gaza policy? Either she was there and did nothing, or Biden didn’t include her.
(This question would potentially be a criminal matter, but hey, Supreme Court to the rescue; Biden is absolutely immune from breaking both Congressional arms control limits and…treaties too? Which have the same force as the Constitution? I’m really surprised the dollar hasn’t taken more of a hit from international businesses.)
Had this been the W administration, the Vice President would have gotten ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY too.
(I still remember The Daily Show: Jon Stewart struggling to make it through something like “today….the vice-president…shot…a 76-year old man…in the face. [audience noise] What have I done to deserve such great material?”)
The problem with the argument is we don't know who will win: polling has been way off the last few cycles, and the media has created the dead zone shutting out dem wins for Biden's entire presidency. Plus the fact that they don't seem interested in Trump's unfitness. They've essentially created a nationwide information hole similar to CNN's lack of fact checking last week.
Chaos at the convention has meant Dems lose for over half a century. The only possible second pick is Harris who is already the Biden back stop. I think it foolhardy to want to tear up the biden candidacy in an atmosphere where most folks would vote for a shoebox to avoid the corruption of Trump.
More effective would be a mass cancelation of nytimes and washpo subscriptions to impose some accountability on their attempts to control the narrative.
“Why don’t voters understand how great Biden’s accomplishments are”
“Biden’s ability to communicate well and inspire confidence is not nearly as important as his ability to get things done”
I noticed that the timestamp on this piece is 6:25 A.M. I wonder if you would have posted thecsame argument at 6:25 P.M. Predident Biden’s speech yesterday afternoon was one of the best-constructed and mist-forcefully delivered stump speeches I can recall it hit all of the requirements:
• a strong case for Biden’s term one achievements bolstered by the latest strong economic news and the new NPS/PBS/Marist Poll showing him ahead
• a blistering attack on Trump’s record as a leader and businessman with attention to hid criminal convictions and adjudicated rape
• Biden’s first substantive takedown of Project 2025
• a clear set if “first 100 days” priorities for term two
The delivery was forceful. The crowd was fired up.
Yes, it wasn’t extemporaneous. It was read. But even so, he was sharp in responding to a pro-Palestinian interrupton. “This war must end.”
Seemed to me to take a lot if wind out of the Dump-Biden boom.
I look forward to whether you take this new information on board or wave it off.
If Biden decides to hand off the race to Harris, he'd be well advised to do it by stepping down and making her the incumbent, according to presidency-predictor Alan Lichtman, incumbency being an element favoring election. (Lichtman seems not to exclude months-long incumbency.) People dislike like his "age", but *do* like his accomplishments—he's been an outstanding president, from a Democrat point of view. My guess is this transfer would be especially fruitful if Harris devoutly and reverently pledged to carry on Biden's programs, as if he had died, thus replacing the body but not the résumé. The ticket would earn much goodwill if Biden said, on his way out, "We heard you. I disagree and it breaks my heart, but we're listening to you and we heard you."
I agree with this completely about the prospects for beating Trump. As Matt said on the podcast, variance is your friend when you are losing (i.e., if you are down by 12 in the NBA going into the fourth quarter, you need to jack up more three-point shots). My only question is whether switching candidates increases the expected number of House and Senate pick ups for the GOP? Variance may not be the friend of every Democratic House and Senate candidate after all
Following the analogy, if McCain had picked Lieberman rather than Palin, he still, almost certainly, would have lost, but would Dems have also picked up 8 senate seats?
I agree that this is a good question, and I don’t know the answer, but a couple of thoughts:
1. Frontline members seem like they would prefer Harris leading the ticket.
2. Anecdotally based on myself and my circle, a Biden-led ticket seems like it’s causing the lowest level of enthusiasm among center/left voters I’ve seen for a Presidential election I’ve seen since … probably 2000. I think a change could be a bolt of energy that could prevent catastrophically bad Dem turnout.
I agree. I think switching candidates is more likely to help than hurt in the Congressional elections, but there might be more risk.
Bro, I love your work. It’s really thoughtful, displays your years of insider experience in politics, and proposes actionable remedies for the problems facing the only party supporting Democracy/Liberalism/Freedom. But I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about up top. There are no crooks, or frauds, or pranksters being mentioned at the top of the Democratic party.. This statement seriously irks me. Have a good weekend.
is it me. because i’m convinced Biden should step down. it remains an important topic. we need voices and thoughts focused on the topic. it adds pressure to a campaign that is unable to accept Biden no longer has the stamina to win this one.
Thoughts on why progressives have been staying with Biden more so than moderate/center-left part of the coalition?
That picture!? I did a double take then a triple take. The guy on the left is clearly John McCain, which makes sense given the article. You would say the guy on the right must be Joe Biden but that didn't immediately register. My first thought was a white haired Mitt Romney? Weird!! Did anyone else have that take? Is the choice of the picture some cosmic, karmic opening through the looking glass? Is there some unknown movement to draft Mitt so he can say something like "well I was just waiting to see if the GOP would draft me as a last minute replacement for Trump but since that ain't happening I FINALLY decided to come out as voting for Biden but then I thought hey I kind of look like Biden... so...???