Thanks for this historical perspective. I just listened to extracts from the debate on BBC radio and found Biden excruciatingly embarrassing. I am not an American voter, but in the interests of the US and the free world, he should be replaced by a younger candidate with a good chance of beating Trump.
Of course there is a risk in switching to a new candidate now, but not doing so perpetuates the inevitable disaster.
From my UK perspective a clean, smart energetic and younger person could reduce Trump to his core Maga base. Really, its a no brainer. Joe B, retire at your Convention with complete dignity and handover to a winner. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeese…..!
I have seen Joe Biden at his best (running into him on Amtrak back in the day between Wilmington and DC) and his most vulnerable (Beau was at MD Anderson the same time my late wife was with cancer) and he is an amazing man, a decent man, and great for the country. Phillip, I must share your pain and dismay as it was too painful for me to watch and hear how feeble and weak Joe sounded. It pains me to think he needs to stand down, but I think after some introspection and reflection he could well do so.
Biden was NOT weak in 2020. He won an astonishing victory. In the entire history of our two-party system (i.e. 170 years) only FDR won a greater share of the popular vote against an incumbent president. And he was a once in century political talent running during a once in a century economic catastrophe. Furthermore, FDR, LBJ and Obama are the only Democrats who won a greater share of the popular vote. Even such an outstanding politician as Bill Clinton, running as an incumbent during unprecedented time of peace and prosperity could not win a simple majority of popular vote. This is a reflection of the fact that the Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous and it's just not easy to assemble it. Biden did that once. That does not automatically mean he'll do that again. I'm just saying that it takes a lot more than simply somebody who looks good on TV and talks smoothly.
I agree--but Biden was actually always weak as a presidential candidate (he tried in the 1980s and 1990s), He never had much appeal and I would argue won in 2020 because he was not Trump.
Yes, he did. He's still not Trump, and Trump is still the alternative. Still, I'm not sure he's actually weak as a presidential candidate. In 1988 he ran as an obscure young senator in a crowded field (and got caught plagiarizing Neil Kinnock of all people). In 2008 he ran in a crowded field including Hillary and Obama. In 2020 he sank in the polls, performed very poorly in the first three contests and left for dead. Even on the day of South Carolina primary there was talk that within hours he'll have to drop out if he wins the state by mere single digits or low double digits. Three days later he was for all practical purposes the presumptive nominee. And his victory against Trump still required a lot of political skills. He had to get votes both from socialists and Republicans (like myself) who had never voted for a Democrat before. And he had to do that in the Age of Internet, not in the good old days, when a candidate could say one thing at one whistle stop and the opposite thing at the next one without anybody noticing.
I suppose Im stuck looking back and always thinking he was weak. Ive never been impressed with Biden--though agree he might have overperformed in 2020. However now he is not up to the job (imho)
The history is clear with Biden. He is a great leader and President, but was never a “great candidate” and I can recall how Obama was questioned for bringing him in the ticket. But his depth of knowledge and experience are excellent!
I have no particular attachment to Biden and in fact disagree with him on some important policies (e.g. protectionism). And let's stipulate that this was not Biden's finest hour, to put it charitably. But we need to take a deep breath, wait for the dust to settle and put things in perspective. Biden had a bad debate but not a catastrophic one. Just imagine that he started talking gibberish, wandered off and fell (and then could not get up on his own). I bet lots of voters actually expected something like that based on what they had heard for months from right-wing media. But of course none of that happened. Biden spent an hour and a half on his feet and answered (albeit quite imperfectly) all questions that were asked of him, even though he had a few verbal stumbles. Trump on multiple occasions completely ignored the questions that were actually asked and instead talked about something not even tangentially related. Sometimes I got an impression he did not even understand the question (e.g. he talked about clean water in response to a global warming question). And his syntax was much worse that Biden's - e.g. "Russia took land away from Bush" (it took me a while to figure out he was probably talking about invasion of Georgia in 2008 rather than the Russian army seizing a large chunk of the Bush ranch in Texas).
There's no question Biden lost the debate. But did Trump won? This election is not about Biden - it's about Trump. And he once again lied about January 6 and firmly refused to pledge to accept the election results. Is he really better off now? It is quite possible that he will get cocky. But there's still a long way to go.
Now, is this really fatal to Biden? Time will tell. But to put things in perspective, in 1984 we had significantly higher inflation and unemployment, and the oldest (up that point) president ever was running for re-election, trying to remain in the White House until almost 78. He had a really bad first debate raising serious questions about his mental acuity (soon after leaving the White House he was actually diagnosed with Alzheimer's). In October. He still managed to recover in the short remaining time and win 49 states and almost 59%. George W. Bush and Obama also had a bad first debate when running for re-election. Again, in October. It is only June now.
I have to agree with Andrew’s analysis. The anti-trump coalition is the strongest bond in the always fractious Democratic Party.
Giving up incumbency for an open convention is a recipe for disaster. Biden remains a good president with a strong and successful record. Don’t give in to the “reflexive control” the MAGA world and lazy pundits is trying to exert.
It's not just MAGA. I suspect that leftist activists and donors are also making a lot of noise now, since they have always wanted somebody further on the Left.
And shame on the media. In the first 40 minutes there was not even any hint from the moderators that one of the two candidates on stage attempted a coup four years ago. That was treated as something a lot less serious than inflation or Gaza.
I can't fathom the US obsession with older candidates. For sure, someone in their twenties is likely an unwise choice as leader of such a nation but these guys are fossils.
I hope there's some speedy introspection and Biden gracefully bows out but I fear he'll be stubborn and the world will suffer, wether he wins, or loses
> I can't fathom the US obsession with older candidates.
Obama was young. Bill Clinton was young.
It's a bit hard, though, for younger candidates to build the name recognition and political capital which it takes to run for president in such a large country.
People in their 20s tend not to be either oligarchs or have developed sufficient relations with oligarchs to wield much political power in an oligarchy. especially an increasingly gerontocractic one.
love your work but once again I must say this is wishful thinking. Let's look at your examples. 1976- arguably Reagan's continued candidacy helped lead to Ford's defeat. 1980- I can definitely tell you that Kennedy's challenge weaked Carter... who lost. And more relevantly, as Heather Cox Richardson points out, the only time a sitting President dropped out - 1968 - the President's party... lost.
While I cringed during the debate, it's also worth remembering that both Reagan and Obama were thought to have lost their first debate badly and recovered in the second, and of course ultimately won. And frankly, if you think putting Andy Beshear in place of Kamala wouldn't destroy the party support of a crucial Dem demographic, you're, um, crazy.
There is no one Johnny or Jane Unbeatable option that stands out among the crowd, unlike the examples you cite. I wish Biden were younger but we must just keep on going.
It would also help if the commentariat/pundit/media would emphasize that Trump refused to say he would honor the results of the voting, even when asked multiple times.
I agree with every word. I just don't see anybody else who can unite Bernie/AOC fans and lifelong Republicans who had never voted for a Democrat before 2020. Biden managed to assemble a bigger coalition than any Democrat except FDR, LBJ and Obama.
That was before Biden decided to lie to all Americans about Covid, kill 750,000+ as a result, mailed bombs to Netenyahu to commit genocide, refused to remove DeJoy at the post office, refused to do anything about student loan debt until it was so little so late that he got no credit, refused to do anything about marijuana laws until it was so little so late that he got no credit, refused to do anything at ALL about the bribe-taking fake judge Thomas or the insurrectionist fake judge Alito, slow-walked the prosecution of actual violent insurrectionist Trump,...
...the point is, Biden actually has an egregiously bad record now. "Generic Democrat" runs 13 points ahead of Biden. It's hard to find "Generic Democrat" but you could get a lot closer than Biden.
What do you mean by lies about Covid? It is not Netanyahu but the Palestinians who commit genocide. And anybody who does not unequivocally condemn and oppose it can win a national election. For that matter, looked what just happened to Jamal Bowman even in the Democratic primary.
Biden can't do anything about Thomas or Alito. It was Garland who was too slow to prosecute Trump. Little can be done about student debt without Congress, and it's bad policy and mixed bag politically.
DeJoy is sneaky, but I liked his wife. They were just behind me in a line to take a photo with Rudy at his fundraiser in 2007 (she had just come back from serving as the US Ambassador to Estonia, and he was merely a businessman).
Biden has a great record as far as I am concerned. And I am actually the kind of voter deciding elections in the Trump era - a lifelong Republican with a PhD living on the outskirts of Charlotte and VERY turned off by by the evolution of the GOP over the past decade and a half (starting with the Tea Party).
Biden claimed that Covid was over (false, it's killling 1000 Americans a week), claimed that you'd be fine if you were vaccinated (false, vaccinated people are routinely catching and spreading Covid, dying of Covid, and getting Long Covid), and Biden's CDC told hospitals to remove respirator masks (which are necessary for infection control). As a result of which people are getting infected with Covid IN HOSPITALS on a routine basis.
I'm pretty sure Biden is suffering from post-Covid damage. He has all the hallmarks of it.
As for the genocide committed by Netenyahu (personally) I refer you to the International Criminal Court warrants. This is detailed in excruciating detail.
Candidates can and should support Israel as a *country*, but you HAVE to be anti-Netenyahu in order to avoid ticking off anyone who is paying attention. 70% of Americans want the US to stop providing the bombs for Netenyahu's personal genocidal scheme. Heck, half of *Israelis* want to get rid of Netenyahu....
Biden apponted Garland. He could have appointed a, y'know, *competent* Attorney General.
Biden can do plenty about Thomas and Alito, like *having an AG who will run a bribery prosecution* against Thomas. Thomas has blatantly confessed lying on federal forms to conceal even more blatant bribes.
Biden just ain't bothering. It's learned helpnessness to pretend that he can't do anything. I'm getting tired of these pretenses where he pretends he can't do anything. He can do things. He chooses not to.
On student loans, I actually think if Biden had done what he *eventually* did but done it *immediately* and *graciously* he would have gotten credit. He refused to do anything for years, kept bellyaching against it, and had to be pressured massively to do anything. This is a good way to not get credit when he eventually gave into the pressure and did something.
Similarly with marijuana rescheduling. If he'd rescheduled cannabis to Schedule IV, where it belongs according to the scientific evidence, immediately when he got into office, he would have gotten credit for it. As it is, he bellyached against it until the very last minute and then engaged in half-measures (Schedule III is still blatantly inappropriate, scientifically speaking).
Now, I think it's good that MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING public pressure can FORCE Biden to GRUDGINGLY do things supported by over 70% of the population. Sure, it's better than Trump.
But wow, that's the standard we're going with? Really?
Covid has been a huge mess. But before Delta Biden's statements were quite defensible. I read the Pfizer clinical trial report and the vaccine performance was awesome (BTW I once co-authored a paper in the Lancet with words "herd immunity" in the title, so I have at least some passing knowledge of the subject). Granted, that was against the wild virus. But even against Alpha it was OK. Delta was really bad and then Omicron was worse. Still, vaccinated people (who are up to date on their vaccination - we did not know how long protection lasts at the time Biden spoke) have a much lower chance of catching and spreading Covid, let alone dying of it.
Sure, Bibi should not be the PM. And that was true at least from the moment he was charged with corruption. But that does not make him guilty of genocide.
No, it's impossible to prosecute Thomas for bribery. Haven't you heard about the latest corruption ruling from SCOTUS?! It basically said that getting "gratuity" after the act is not bribery. But Thomas did not even take any identifiable official acts in exchange for gifts. His benefactor's affairs never came up before the court, so he never directly benefited from any rulings. Sure, he wanted some outcomes for ideological reasons or because they would make it easier for his businesses (among thousands of others) to make money. But can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he actually told Thomas what he wanted, let alone made it clear that his "gratuity" depended on it?
Once again, he knew that student loan forgiveness was bad policy and questionable politics.
They are both excruciating, but in different ways. Neither should be President. That said, Biden is the less bad of the two in an existential way, simply because he is not a liar, fantasist and sociopath like Trump. Ditching Biden now would be a huge strategic mistake, because there is not a strong "candidate of the future" waiting in the wings, being held back only by the incumbency of Biden. It is not as if Adlai Stevenson had been elected in 1956, but become incapable by 1960, leaving the way open for JFK. So if Biden withdraws (or is removed) the workings of the Convention will throw up a candidate, for sure, but not anyone who can compete against the profile established by Trump over the last decade. The advantage of incumbency (which is generally an important factor) would, in a manner of speaking, be ceded to Trump.
Biden is definitely the less bad--but sadly that doesnt mean he can win. I would rather take my chances with a candidate that could win over won that will probably lose.
Sadly, I fear that Biden is the least unlikely of the potential Democratic candidates to win. The others are all nobodies. So it may be that the CNN debate was decisive, whether or not Biden remains in place, but not in a way that students of Trump's own mental problems necessarily expected.
It seems like most Democratic candidates lean to the left of the party and would be loathed by the Republicans.
As a Canadian I’m not familiar with Governor Beshear of Kentucky. Are there other candidates that have credentials on the right that could appeal to middle America?
If you take 30 Democrats who ever ran against a Republican for president and apply their shares of the popular vote to the 2020 election (i.e. pro-rate Biden's vote in states accordingly), Trump beats all of them except FDR, LBJ, Obama and, of course, Biden. But now there are two dozen capable of beating Trump?
In the 1960's and especially earlier politics worked very differently. There were strong parties, few or no primaries and no modern technology. The convention was actually the first chance for delegates from different places in the country to meet and talk. And there were powerful party bosses who could deliver scores of votes. So they could get into smoke filled backrooms and make deals. It does not work like that now. And even if we have a brokered convention, everything will be negotiated before it even starts.
Now I have to disagree with the last section. Absolutely the only viable way to get a new candidate is for the establishment to quietly pick a consensus candidate. Any open fight, especially with debates, will be fatal. A lot of delegates are leftist activists (and even many who are not will be pressured by leftist donors). All candidates in the debates will have to pander to them. That will produce video clips making any emerging candidate utterly unelectable. Because many anti-Trump Republicans won't be impressed. Beshear would surely be acceptable to them, but there's little chance of him emerging from such a process. And even if he can, the question is whether he can energize the base.
They were incomparably stronger. If you look at the US history around in the first half of the last century, all Congressmen names that you see are of Speakers, Minority Leaders and committee chairs. You simply can't find many analogs of AOC and MTG. Of course, there were members that were just as embarrassing to their parties. But that was due to scandals about money, alcohol and sex, not some vile or crazy talk in front of a national audience. The basic assumption was that in your first several terms in the House you just do as you are told. It was simply unthinkable for a few backbenchers like Matt Gaetz to overthrow the Speaker. There were party machines in states and cities. The way the conventions worked involved a bunch of men sitting in a room and doing horse trading. The only reason they could do that was that each could make dozens of delegates vote for somebody they have never even heard about before. And passing laws required a handshake between just a few men.
I’m not too hopeful that Biden will do the right thing and withdraw from the race, though he should. Not doing so will be an epic mistake, akin to Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s insistence on remaining on the Supreme Court. What is it about left leaning people that makes them stay in office well past their sell by date?
These tv debates matter, but for the wrong reasons, with all the ad hominem arguments. Kennedy won the first live televised presidential debate in 1960 against Nixon because he looked energetic and wisely decided to use make up for the camera. Nixon declined. The results were devastating. Biden today showed signs of frailty and mild cognitive impairment. That won't improve in the next four years. The way forward for the Democrats is not by clinging onto Biden.
Another thought. The only issue in this election is whether Trump should ever be president again. The focus should be on Trump. Fortunately, he's a narcissist, so he actually wants to be the center of attention. But if Dems decide to replace Biden, then media (really tired of having dealt with Trump, his lies, his boorishness etc. for 9 years) will eagerly rush to cover every minute detail of selecting the new candidate, and then intrepid journalists will get very busy chasing down the candidate's classmates from elementary school and writing profiles "Who is X". Instead of accurately reporting on Trump, his past crimes (including a coup attempt), his future plans (like Project 2025 and "retribution"), his legal and financial troubles etc. The new candidate will become the focus for a long time.
At my age (64) I have direct, quasi telepathic empathy with oldies who cannot remember their words. Biden was horrifically bad. He’s trying to explain that he gave money to historic black colleges because the white colleges have … have … I can see him trying to remember the word money or the word endowment, and they just won’t come back. The words won’t come. It was beyond bad. It was just catastrophic Nobody could willingly vote for that guy. After 10 minutes I thought that’s the end for Ukraine.
We are not voting for that guy - we are voting against the other guy. I'll willingly vote for Biden's dog if that's what it takes. Curiously, nobody even raised an eyebrow when Trump was saying things like "Russia took land from Bush".
"What is the proposition 2025? Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies." Some other agencies to abolish include the NOAA (because that agency promotes climate crisis) and the Department of Education (because it promotes teaching racial history).
Wiki has a good summary of the plan's content and its criticisms. At least we will know what we are in for. I am old. I know age's limitations. Neither of the two candidates should be running. It is sheer hubris for Biden to think that he alone can beat Trump.
Andy Beshear is amazing, and I would love to see my governor on the national stage. He is a man of faith in the mold of Jimmy Carter, and a good counter to Christian nationalism.
So would I. But he'll need to earn the nomination the old-fashioned way at some point in the future. The establishment can't just pass over Kamala for him without serious consequences for voter turnout.
I think the Democratic establishment is underestimating how quickly they could stand up another candidate and how much of the Biden vote (virtually all of it) is just the anti-Trump vote. Their superpower could be the ability to move on from a candidate dispassionately.
Getting a different candidate at the convention sounds good in theory. But the immediate question is "Who?" There's no obvious alternative. Trump's base is firmly behind him. And its geographical distribution gives Trump big advantage in the Electoral College (as late as 2012 the Electoral College favored Democrats - Romney could have won the popular vote by 1.5% and still lose the election). The Democrat needs to defeat Trump by at least 4%, better 5%. That can't be done simply by energizing the base - the candidate must win the votes of millions of anti-Trump Republicans.
And herein lies the problem: the candidate still needs to bring the base out. But the candidate absolutely can't afford to alienate anti-Trump Republicans. Biden has already demonstrated his ability to do that. No part of his coalition actually loves him, and many are unhappy with him. But he's not too objectionable to them. His very long political career is actually an advantage. The voters know him. The socialists know that while he's not one of them, he won't move too far to the right after winning. The Republicans know that while he's significantly to the left of them, he won't suddenly become a socialist. What other potential candidate has such reputation? If the candidate says something to reassure the Left, how will Republicans react? I'm talking about anti-Trump Republicans on the outer reaches of the Biden coalition. They already don't like Biden's policies and would rather have a "normie" Republican president. But at least it's just one more term, and then they hope they'll have a better Republican candidate to vote for. But a young dynamic Dem candidate will want two terms and will have a good chance of getting re-elected. So their choice become somebody they don't trust implementing policies they don't like for 8 years or Trump for just 4 years. It's suddenly a much different trade-off. Basically, the new Dem candidate will have to have MORE appeal to anti-Trump Republicans while still somehow keeping the Left in the fold. I just can't think of any such candidate right now.
Thanks for this historical perspective. I just listened to extracts from the debate on BBC radio and found Biden excruciatingly embarrassing. I am not an American voter, but in the interests of the US and the free world, he should be replaced by a younger candidate with a good chance of beating Trump.
Agree--people are being far too precious about this. I think many Democrats would be much stronger against Trump
Of course there is a risk in switching to a new candidate now, but not doing so perpetuates the inevitable disaster.
From my UK perspective a clean, smart energetic and younger person could reduce Trump to his core Maga base. Really, its a no brainer. Joe B, retire at your Convention with complete dignity and handover to a winner. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeese…..!
I have seen Joe Biden at his best (running into him on Amtrak back in the day between Wilmington and DC) and his most vulnerable (Beau was at MD Anderson the same time my late wife was with cancer) and he is an amazing man, a decent man, and great for the country. Phillip, I must share your pain and dismay as it was too painful for me to watch and hear how feeble and weak Joe sounded. It pains me to think he needs to stand down, but I think after some introspection and reflection he could well do so.
Biden was NOT weak in 2020. He won an astonishing victory. In the entire history of our two-party system (i.e. 170 years) only FDR won a greater share of the popular vote against an incumbent president. And he was a once in century political talent running during a once in a century economic catastrophe. Furthermore, FDR, LBJ and Obama are the only Democrats who won a greater share of the popular vote. Even such an outstanding politician as Bill Clinton, running as an incumbent during unprecedented time of peace and prosperity could not win a simple majority of popular vote. This is a reflection of the fact that the Democratic coalition is very heterogeneous and it's just not easy to assemble it. Biden did that once. That does not automatically mean he'll do that again. I'm just saying that it takes a lot more than simply somebody who looks good on TV and talks smoothly.
I agree--but Biden was actually always weak as a presidential candidate (he tried in the 1980s and 1990s), He never had much appeal and I would argue won in 2020 because he was not Trump.
Yes, he did. He's still not Trump, and Trump is still the alternative. Still, I'm not sure he's actually weak as a presidential candidate. In 1988 he ran as an obscure young senator in a crowded field (and got caught plagiarizing Neil Kinnock of all people). In 2008 he ran in a crowded field including Hillary and Obama. In 2020 he sank in the polls, performed very poorly in the first three contests and left for dead. Even on the day of South Carolina primary there was talk that within hours he'll have to drop out if he wins the state by mere single digits or low double digits. Three days later he was for all practical purposes the presumptive nominee. And his victory against Trump still required a lot of political skills. He had to get votes both from socialists and Republicans (like myself) who had never voted for a Democrat before. And he had to do that in the Age of Internet, not in the good old days, when a candidate could say one thing at one whistle stop and the opposite thing at the next one without anybody noticing.
I suppose Im stuck looking back and always thinking he was weak. Ive never been impressed with Biden--though agree he might have overperformed in 2020. However now he is not up to the job (imho)
The history is clear with Biden. He is a great leader and President, but was never a “great candidate” and I can recall how Obama was questioned for bringing him in the ticket. But his depth of knowledge and experience are excellent!
I have no particular attachment to Biden and in fact disagree with him on some important policies (e.g. protectionism). And let's stipulate that this was not Biden's finest hour, to put it charitably. But we need to take a deep breath, wait for the dust to settle and put things in perspective. Biden had a bad debate but not a catastrophic one. Just imagine that he started talking gibberish, wandered off and fell (and then could not get up on his own). I bet lots of voters actually expected something like that based on what they had heard for months from right-wing media. But of course none of that happened. Biden spent an hour and a half on his feet and answered (albeit quite imperfectly) all questions that were asked of him, even though he had a few verbal stumbles. Trump on multiple occasions completely ignored the questions that were actually asked and instead talked about something not even tangentially related. Sometimes I got an impression he did not even understand the question (e.g. he talked about clean water in response to a global warming question). And his syntax was much worse that Biden's - e.g. "Russia took land away from Bush" (it took me a while to figure out he was probably talking about invasion of Georgia in 2008 rather than the Russian army seizing a large chunk of the Bush ranch in Texas).
There's no question Biden lost the debate. But did Trump won? This election is not about Biden - it's about Trump. And he once again lied about January 6 and firmly refused to pledge to accept the election results. Is he really better off now? It is quite possible that he will get cocky. But there's still a long way to go.
Now, is this really fatal to Biden? Time will tell. But to put things in perspective, in 1984 we had significantly higher inflation and unemployment, and the oldest (up that point) president ever was running for re-election, trying to remain in the White House until almost 78. He had a really bad first debate raising serious questions about his mental acuity (soon after leaving the White House he was actually diagnosed with Alzheimer's). In October. He still managed to recover in the short remaining time and win 49 states and almost 59%. George W. Bush and Obama also had a bad first debate when running for re-election. Again, in October. It is only June now.
I have to agree with Andrew’s analysis. The anti-trump coalition is the strongest bond in the always fractious Democratic Party.
Giving up incumbency for an open convention is a recipe for disaster. Biden remains a good president with a strong and successful record. Don’t give in to the “reflexive control” the MAGA world and lazy pundits is trying to exert.
It's not just MAGA. I suspect that leftist activists and donors are also making a lot of noise now, since they have always wanted somebody further on the Left.
And shame on the media. In the first 40 minutes there was not even any hint from the moderators that one of the two candidates on stage attempted a coup four years ago. That was treated as something a lot less serious than inflation or Gaza.
Well, speaking as someone on the left involved in my local Democratic committee,
I haven’t heard any serious noise from that demographic calling for Biden’s replacement.
The Biden administration has worked with the center left to pass a lot of much needed legislation. No Ted Kennedy figure has risen to challenge Joe.
Agree completely about the media. All their bed wetting is going to drive up the cost of laundry products.
I can't fathom the US obsession with older candidates. For sure, someone in their twenties is likely an unwise choice as leader of such a nation but these guys are fossils.
I hope there's some speedy introspection and Biden gracefully bows out but I fear he'll be stubborn and the world will suffer, wether he wins, or loses
I hope youre not right.
> I can't fathom the US obsession with older candidates.
Obama was young. Bill Clinton was young.
It's a bit hard, though, for younger candidates to build the name recognition and political capital which it takes to run for president in such a large country.
People in their 20s tend not to be either oligarchs or have developed sufficient relations with oligarchs to wield much political power in an oligarchy. especially an increasingly gerontocractic one.
Dear Phil,
love your work but once again I must say this is wishful thinking. Let's look at your examples. 1976- arguably Reagan's continued candidacy helped lead to Ford's defeat. 1980- I can definitely tell you that Kennedy's challenge weaked Carter... who lost. And more relevantly, as Heather Cox Richardson points out, the only time a sitting President dropped out - 1968 - the President's party... lost.
While I cringed during the debate, it's also worth remembering that both Reagan and Obama were thought to have lost their first debate badly and recovered in the second, and of course ultimately won. And frankly, if you think putting Andy Beshear in place of Kamala wouldn't destroy the party support of a crucial Dem demographic, you're, um, crazy.
There is no one Johnny or Jane Unbeatable option that stands out among the crowd, unlike the examples you cite. I wish Biden were younger but we must just keep on going.
It would also help if the commentariat/pundit/media would emphasize that Trump refused to say he would honor the results of the voting, even when asked multiple times.
I agree with every word. I just don't see anybody else who can unite Bernie/AOC fans and lifelong Republicans who had never voted for a Democrat before 2020. Biden managed to assemble a bigger coalition than any Democrat except FDR, LBJ and Obama.
That was before Biden decided to lie to all Americans about Covid, kill 750,000+ as a result, mailed bombs to Netenyahu to commit genocide, refused to remove DeJoy at the post office, refused to do anything about student loan debt until it was so little so late that he got no credit, refused to do anything about marijuana laws until it was so little so late that he got no credit, refused to do anything at ALL about the bribe-taking fake judge Thomas or the insurrectionist fake judge Alito, slow-walked the prosecution of actual violent insurrectionist Trump,...
...the point is, Biden actually has an egregiously bad record now. "Generic Democrat" runs 13 points ahead of Biden. It's hard to find "Generic Democrat" but you could get a lot closer than Biden.
What do you mean by lies about Covid? It is not Netanyahu but the Palestinians who commit genocide. And anybody who does not unequivocally condemn and oppose it can win a national election. For that matter, looked what just happened to Jamal Bowman even in the Democratic primary.
Biden can't do anything about Thomas or Alito. It was Garland who was too slow to prosecute Trump. Little can be done about student debt without Congress, and it's bad policy and mixed bag politically.
DeJoy is sneaky, but I liked his wife. They were just behind me in a line to take a photo with Rudy at his fundraiser in 2007 (she had just come back from serving as the US Ambassador to Estonia, and he was merely a businessman).
Biden has a great record as far as I am concerned. And I am actually the kind of voter deciding elections in the Trump era - a lifelong Republican with a PhD living on the outskirts of Charlotte and VERY turned off by by the evolution of the GOP over the past decade and a half (starting with the Tea Party).
Biden claimed that Covid was over (false, it's killling 1000 Americans a week), claimed that you'd be fine if you were vaccinated (false, vaccinated people are routinely catching and spreading Covid, dying of Covid, and getting Long Covid), and Biden's CDC told hospitals to remove respirator masks (which are necessary for infection control). As a result of which people are getting infected with Covid IN HOSPITALS on a routine basis.
Hey, I have a published peer-reviewed handout on this one... https://whn.global/doctors-should-not-infect-patients/
I'm pretty sure Biden is suffering from post-Covid damage. He has all the hallmarks of it.
As for the genocide committed by Netenyahu (personally) I refer you to the International Criminal Court warrants. This is detailed in excruciating detail.
Candidates can and should support Israel as a *country*, but you HAVE to be anti-Netenyahu in order to avoid ticking off anyone who is paying attention. 70% of Americans want the US to stop providing the bombs for Netenyahu's personal genocidal scheme. Heck, half of *Israelis* want to get rid of Netenyahu....
Biden apponted Garland. He could have appointed a, y'know, *competent* Attorney General.
Biden can do plenty about Thomas and Alito, like *having an AG who will run a bribery prosecution* against Thomas. Thomas has blatantly confessed lying on federal forms to conceal even more blatant bribes.
Biden just ain't bothering. It's learned helpnessness to pretend that he can't do anything. I'm getting tired of these pretenses where he pretends he can't do anything. He can do things. He chooses not to.
On student loans, I actually think if Biden had done what he *eventually* did but done it *immediately* and *graciously* he would have gotten credit. He refused to do anything for years, kept bellyaching against it, and had to be pressured massively to do anything. This is a good way to not get credit when he eventually gave into the pressure and did something.
Similarly with marijuana rescheduling. If he'd rescheduled cannabis to Schedule IV, where it belongs according to the scientific evidence, immediately when he got into office, he would have gotten credit for it. As it is, he bellyached against it until the very last minute and then engaged in half-measures (Schedule III is still blatantly inappropriate, scientifically speaking).
Now, I think it's good that MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING public pressure can FORCE Biden to GRUDGINGLY do things supported by over 70% of the population. Sure, it's better than Trump.
But wow, that's the standard we're going with? Really?
Covid has been a huge mess. But before Delta Biden's statements were quite defensible. I read the Pfizer clinical trial report and the vaccine performance was awesome (BTW I once co-authored a paper in the Lancet with words "herd immunity" in the title, so I have at least some passing knowledge of the subject). Granted, that was against the wild virus. But even against Alpha it was OK. Delta was really bad and then Omicron was worse. Still, vaccinated people (who are up to date on their vaccination - we did not know how long protection lasts at the time Biden spoke) have a much lower chance of catching and spreading Covid, let alone dying of it.
Sure, Bibi should not be the PM. And that was true at least from the moment he was charged with corruption. But that does not make him guilty of genocide.
No, it's impossible to prosecute Thomas for bribery. Haven't you heard about the latest corruption ruling from SCOTUS?! It basically said that getting "gratuity" after the act is not bribery. But Thomas did not even take any identifiable official acts in exchange for gifts. His benefactor's affairs never came up before the court, so he never directly benefited from any rulings. Sure, he wanted some outcomes for ideological reasons or because they would make it easier for his businesses (among thousands of others) to make money. But can it be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he actually told Thomas what he wanted, let alone made it clear that his "gratuity" depended on it?
Once again, he knew that student loan forgiveness was bad policy and questionable politics.
They are both excruciating, but in different ways. Neither should be President. That said, Biden is the less bad of the two in an existential way, simply because he is not a liar, fantasist and sociopath like Trump. Ditching Biden now would be a huge strategic mistake, because there is not a strong "candidate of the future" waiting in the wings, being held back only by the incumbency of Biden. It is not as if Adlai Stevenson had been elected in 1956, but become incapable by 1960, leaving the way open for JFK. So if Biden withdraws (or is removed) the workings of the Convention will throw up a candidate, for sure, but not anyone who can compete against the profile established by Trump over the last decade. The advantage of incumbency (which is generally an important factor) would, in a manner of speaking, be ceded to Trump.
Biden is definitely the less bad--but sadly that doesnt mean he can win. I would rather take my chances with a candidate that could win over won that will probably lose.
Sadly, I fear that Biden is the least unlikely of the potential Democratic candidates to win. The others are all nobodies. So it may be that the CNN debate was decisive, whether or not Biden remains in place, but not in a way that students of Trump's own mental problems necessarily expected.
The Dems have two dozen very viable candidates of the future waiting in the wings. Details upon request.
It seems like most Democratic candidates lean to the left of the party and would be loathed by the Republicans.
As a Canadian I’m not familiar with Governor Beshear of Kentucky. Are there other candidates that have credentials on the right that could appeal to middle America?
Beshear would be fine. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Amy Klobuchar in MN all could appeal to Never Trumpers.
Appreciate your insights. Thanks.
If you take 30 Democrats who ever ran against a Republican for president and apply their shares of the popular vote to the 2020 election (i.e. pro-rate Biden's vote in states accordingly), Trump beats all of them except FDR, LBJ, Obama and, of course, Biden. But now there are two dozen capable of beating Trump?
You make a powerful argument for the 2020 version of Joe Biden.
Here, here!
In the 1960's and especially earlier politics worked very differently. There were strong parties, few or no primaries and no modern technology. The convention was actually the first chance for delegates from different places in the country to meet and talk. And there were powerful party bosses who could deliver scores of votes. So they could get into smoke filled backrooms and make deals. It does not work like that now. And even if we have a brokered convention, everything will be negotiated before it even starts.
Now I have to disagree with the last section. Absolutely the only viable way to get a new candidate is for the establishment to quietly pick a consensus candidate. Any open fight, especially with debates, will be fatal. A lot of delegates are leftist activists (and even many who are not will be pressured by leftist donors). All candidates in the debates will have to pander to them. That will produce video clips making any emerging candidate utterly unelectable. Because many anti-Trump Republicans won't be impressed. Beshear would surely be acceptable to them, but there's little chance of him emerging from such a process. And even if he can, the question is whether he can energize the base.
"Strong parties" is a completely inaccurate description of parties in the 1960s and earlier. They were much weaker than they are now, actually.
They were incomparably stronger. If you look at the US history around in the first half of the last century, all Congressmen names that you see are of Speakers, Minority Leaders and committee chairs. You simply can't find many analogs of AOC and MTG. Of course, there were members that were just as embarrassing to their parties. But that was due to scandals about money, alcohol and sex, not some vile or crazy talk in front of a national audience. The basic assumption was that in your first several terms in the House you just do as you are told. It was simply unthinkable for a few backbenchers like Matt Gaetz to overthrow the Speaker. There were party machines in states and cities. The way the conventions worked involved a bunch of men sitting in a room and doing horse trading. The only reason they could do that was that each could make dozens of delegates vote for somebody they have never even heard about before. And passing laws required a handshake between just a few men.
I’m not too hopeful that Biden will do the right thing and withdraw from the race, though he should. Not doing so will be an epic mistake, akin to Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s insistence on remaining on the Supreme Court. What is it about left leaning people that makes them stay in office well past their sell by date?
These tv debates matter, but for the wrong reasons, with all the ad hominem arguments. Kennedy won the first live televised presidential debate in 1960 against Nixon because he looked energetic and wisely decided to use make up for the camera. Nixon declined. The results were devastating. Biden today showed signs of frailty and mild cognitive impairment. That won't improve in the next four years. The way forward for the Democrats is not by clinging onto Biden.
Another thought. The only issue in this election is whether Trump should ever be president again. The focus should be on Trump. Fortunately, he's a narcissist, so he actually wants to be the center of attention. But if Dems decide to replace Biden, then media (really tired of having dealt with Trump, his lies, his boorishness etc. for 9 years) will eagerly rush to cover every minute detail of selecting the new candidate, and then intrepid journalists will get very busy chasing down the candidate's classmates from elementary school and writing profiles "Who is X". Instead of accurately reporting on Trump, his past crimes (including a coup attempt), his future plans (like Project 2025 and "retribution"), his legal and financial troubles etc. The new candidate will become the focus for a long time.
At my age (64) I have direct, quasi telepathic empathy with oldies who cannot remember their words. Biden was horrifically bad. He’s trying to explain that he gave money to historic black colleges because the white colleges have … have … I can see him trying to remember the word money or the word endowment, and they just won’t come back. The words won’t come. It was beyond bad. It was just catastrophic Nobody could willingly vote for that guy. After 10 minutes I thought that’s the end for Ukraine.
We are not voting for that guy - we are voting against the other guy. I'll willingly vote for Biden's dog if that's what it takes. Curiously, nobody even raised an eyebrow when Trump was saying things like "Russia took land from Bush".
I agree we have to prevent Trump but I don’t call that willingly voting for Biden
My despair caused by the "peace plan" became a near panic attack reading some of Project 2025's 900 pages. It presents a blueprint for a second Trump administration. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise
"What is the proposition 2025? Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies." Some other agencies to abolish include the NOAA (because that agency promotes climate crisis) and the Department of Education (because it promotes teaching racial history).
Wiki has a good summary of the plan's content and its criticisms. At least we will know what we are in for. I am old. I know age's limitations. Neither of the two candidates should be running. It is sheer hubris for Biden to think that he alone can beat Trump.
Andy Beshear is amazing, and I would love to see my governor on the national stage. He is a man of faith in the mold of Jimmy Carter, and a good counter to Christian nationalism.
So would I. But he'll need to earn the nomination the old-fashioned way at some point in the future. The establishment can't just pass over Kamala for him without serious consequences for voter turnout.
Agree. This is not yet his time for the top of the ticket. OTOH, he would be a great VP choice for Kamala or Whitmer.
I think the Democratic establishment is underestimating how quickly they could stand up another candidate and how much of the Biden vote (virtually all of it) is just the anti-Trump vote. Their superpower could be the ability to move on from a candidate dispassionately.
Getting a different candidate at the convention sounds good in theory. But the immediate question is "Who?" There's no obvious alternative. Trump's base is firmly behind him. And its geographical distribution gives Trump big advantage in the Electoral College (as late as 2012 the Electoral College favored Democrats - Romney could have won the popular vote by 1.5% and still lose the election). The Democrat needs to defeat Trump by at least 4%, better 5%. That can't be done simply by energizing the base - the candidate must win the votes of millions of anti-Trump Republicans.
And herein lies the problem: the candidate still needs to bring the base out. But the candidate absolutely can't afford to alienate anti-Trump Republicans. Biden has already demonstrated his ability to do that. No part of his coalition actually loves him, and many are unhappy with him. But he's not too objectionable to them. His very long political career is actually an advantage. The voters know him. The socialists know that while he's not one of them, he won't move too far to the right after winning. The Republicans know that while he's significantly to the left of them, he won't suddenly become a socialist. What other potential candidate has such reputation? If the candidate says something to reassure the Left, how will Republicans react? I'm talking about anti-Trump Republicans on the outer reaches of the Biden coalition. They already don't like Biden's policies and would rather have a "normie" Republican president. But at least it's just one more term, and then they hope they'll have a better Republican candidate to vote for. But a young dynamic Dem candidate will want two terms and will have a good chance of getting re-elected. So their choice become somebody they don't trust implementing policies they don't like for 8 years or Trump for just 4 years. It's suddenly a much different trade-off. Basically, the new Dem candidate will have to have MORE appeal to anti-Trump Republicans while still somehow keeping the Left in the fold. I just can't think of any such candidate right now.
If Biden did step down, Kamala Harris would try to take up the mantle, and she is not a strong candidate.
Exactly. But passing her over in favor of a white man will cause huge problems for ALL Dem candidates.