Update on the Democrats’ Dilemma
Stuck in the semi-public stage.
I have been occupied by a number of professional matters and so have not had time to address the building pressure on the COVID-isolated President to step down from the campaign. I will say that I went to bed Thursday night half expecting to wake up to an announcement that he was no longer running on Friday. Instead at one point my phone pushed a NYT headline that Biden announced he would be returning to the campaign trail next week. NPR reported the same this morning.
Indeed, the news is an ongoing mixture of somebody else saying he should go coupled with counter-programming from the Biden camp that he is still in the race.
So, earlier in the week I had noted the following scenarios.
- The party rallies around Biden.
- The party fights with Biden to get him to step down.
- Biden gracefully steps away and hands the baton to Harris.
- There is a floor fight to choose someone after Biden exits (without or without a “mini-primary” as some have suggested).
We are firmly in #2. As noted above, stories about Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff (a Pelosi ally), and even Obama suggesting Biden should exit made it seemed almost inevitable.
Now I am back to being not so sure, especially given the signaling from Biden.
I also have concerns that a prolonged #2 scenario is damaging to the anti-Trump cause. But I will also hasten to note that it felt (and I use that word very deliberately) to a lot of people last Saturday that the assassination attempt on Trump was going to be the decisive factor in this race. However, I must confess that it feels (again, a deliberate usage) to me that that event has already faded a bit into the overall fabric of the narrative. Like school shootings that were finally going to change the national narrative on gun violence, this event seem to be just another example of the fact that we have come to accept these things the same way we accept tornadoes and earthquakes. Just facts of life that are awful news stories that happen to other people and we just move on to the next bit.
But I digress.
I would argue that #2 needs leads to either #1 or #3, and it needs to do so quickly. The Democratic National Convention is basically a month away and the party cannot (or, at least should not) wait until the last minute.
I still think #4 would be a disaster on multiple fronts to include the fact that an intra-party fight will be a detriment to overall goal. It would take attention away from Trump’s negatives, give the GOP a talking point about how unified they are (and Dems are, well, in disarray), and, most importantly, give voters a lot of negatives about the winning side of the fight (since, by definition, an intra-party fight would mean Democrats criticizing other Democrats).
What I continue to find troubling is that a lot of the oust Biden camp seems to think #4 is a swell idea.
Still, I would note this from the DNC Chair:
Really, the only possible route, in my view, for #4 is Biden bowing out and releasing the delegates to a floor fight without endorsing Harris. (Also I keep seeing words like “coalescing” about Democratic leaders in these reports–but that seems to me to be obviously wishful thinking at best, if not just rank speculation).
The reporting on all of this has been a bit maddening, insofar as headlines Thursday made it sound like Biden was seriously contemplating an exit. However, both the NYT (Secluded in Rehoboth, Biden Stews at Allies’ Pressure to Drop Out of the Race) and CBS reporter Robert Costa are now reporting the opposite.
The private v. public part of this key to me. If Pelosi, et al., really do think that the party’s only hope is changing presidential nominees, they are going to have to take that fight public, and they will need to do so pretty much this coming week. But, of course, if they do that and fail they will hand the GOP a whoooole lot of commercial fodder.
I continue to be of the belief that the race will be close regardless of #1 or #3, and that it will be winnable, but I also wouldn’t wager anything of substance on the outcome. I think it all boils down to MI, PA, and WI.
One passing note, as this stuck out to me from the NYT piece linked above:
In privately railing about Mr. Obama and even aides to former President Bill Clinton, Mr. Biden has made clear that he finds it particularly rich that the architects of historic Democratic losses in the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections would be lecturing him about how to save the party after he presided over a better-than-expected midterm in 2022. While one person said Mr. Biden is not irked at Mr. Clinton himself — in fact, he is grateful the former president has been pressing donors to keep giving — others said that Mr. Obama is another story.
This strikes me because if I were Biden, or one of his team, this would certainly be the kind of thing that would reinforce my desire to stay in. On the one hand, Obama was a two-term president who is looked back on fondly. On the other, the Obama stewardship of the Democratic Party was not one of great success.* As such, were I Biden looking at 2022 and the general health of the Democratic Party, I would probably use that as evidence that I knew more than the people trying to oust me. I am not saying that that is actually good evidence for him to stay, but am noting how it could be self-reinforcing to him and his allies. Likewise, I think that Nancy Pelosi may be one of the most impressive legislative leaders in the nation’s history (and certainly of recent vintage) but that’s not the same skillset as running a national election (or, at least, I can see Biden’s folks thinking that way).
*See, for example, via Brookings, The fragile legacy of Barack Obama and The Atlantic: What Happens to the Democratic Party After Obama?
Yep, that’s about the size of it.
I’ve largely lost interest in the matter of should he stay or should he go, since it looks to me like a flipped coin that is still spinning in the air. Analysis is futile. It’ll either be heads or tails.
I’ll add to my confession of ‘story’ bias in an earlier thread, to point out that the first people to jump ship were media and Hollywood, two groups that share my focus on narrative. Story people who don’t see a way to write a Biden victory.
One thing that’s occurred to me is that Biden’s success in 2020 may have in part been due to the pandemic allowing him to pretty much avoid retail campaigning for the whole election, and part of the problem now is that 2024 has shifted back to a more traditional campaign, which has never really been Biden’s forte…
Biden and his team could do a lot to settle doubts about his candidacy by explaining to the Pelosis, Schumers, and Obamas of the party (Among others) what the path to victory is. Repeating the same mantras and ignoring all the elephants in the room as if the campaign is not in trouble doesn’t inspire confidence and won’t get the naysayers to shut up.
I’ll ask again, what is Biden’s theory of victory? What is the plan to come back from the current deficit and ameliorate all of Biden’s negatives to improve his chance to win? Everything the Biden team has tried in the last month has done the opposite.
The whole idea that Biden “presided” over the good 2022 midterm performance is eliding at best. A lot of the success is because the Trumpified GoP ran such terrible candidates. There are lots of articles like this one from 2022 that explain how many Democrats who were running did not need or want Biden’s help because Biden was about as unpopular with the public then as he is now.
And for this race, the down ballot Democratic candidates are polling way ahead of Biden and one of the worries is that his unpopularity will lose winnable down ballot races. What’s the campaign’s answer to that? They don’t have one.
I was alarmed, when Biden’s family first considered the calls for him to step aside after the debate, that one of the people he most relied upon for input was Hunter Biden. But I reminded myself of my deep conviction that drug abuse is a disease, not a character flaw, and that some of the wisest people I know are recovered addicts.
But today the Washington Post’s article about how the Biden family is grappling with this situation raised a possible conflict of interest: Biden may be worried about how Trump may pursue Hunter Biden if Trump is elected.
This conflict of interest is worrisome to me if it IS influencing Biden’s insistence on running.
@Andy:
But they haven’t improved. They are still running terrible candidates, including the head of the ticket. I think that “the GOP ran garbage candidates in 2022, that’s why they lost, and 2024 is different” is a leaky argument.
Democrats did well in 2022, and they’ve done very well in special elections. What’s different is the head of the party is now on the ballot (not just his policies/administration), and he’s not inspiring confidence.
They need to do a LOT better job of touting successes, and I’m not even certain that matters. Unemployment is low, crime is down, inflation is cooling, stock market is hitting record highs, consumer prices actually FELL in June, etc. and Trump’s speech sounded like we’re living in a dystopia. Surrogates are treading water right now instead of being out there because of all of this [waves hands towards massive Democratic mess].
It’s alarming.
There is too much resistance to Kamala Harris to get to your option #3 easily.
The revolt against Biden is being significantly driven by a dump Harris also goal, part of the problem with Biden is Harris being his backup.
Here is a graphic that shows Whitmer, Buttigieg, generic Dem and Gavin Newsom all poll better than Harris, even though she is VP, on the ballot, and has name recognition.
https://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Screenshot-2024-07-19-at-3.20.29%E2%80%AFPM-1414×1536.png
And, I have seen it reported that part of Biden’s resistance is driven by lack of confidence in Harris’ prospects.
Your option #1 is also not an easy lift. There are too many players who care more about tax cuts or page views or subscriptions than they do fear of Trump. And IMO there is significant outright
ratfucking also occurring.
And, unfortunately, option #4 has lots of support.
So, just a shitshow.
@Jen:
This.
As I wrote in the other thread, if the Democrats can make the election about “What’s at Stake” rather than “Who is the candidate?” then the coming election really will be a referendum on what kind of country we are and a referendum election goes to the Democrats.
Democrats = democratic governance while Republicans = authoritarian rule.
Per Michael’s lens, this is good story. It’s the basis of the plot of the Star Wars films, for crissakes.
Per Steven’s theory of media bias for the easy and dramatic, the “What’s at stake?” narrative is easier to tell now that the Republicans have stopped trying to be subtle about their intent, while it is dramatic when the choices will have very different impacts on the country’s future.
@Skookum:
On his way out the door, Biden should pardon his screw up kid for any and all federal crimes up to the date and time of the pardon. Whether that is when he leaves office at the end of this term, next week, the end of the next term…
Given his age, he should probably have a version of the pardon that he signs and dates every morning, and throw out the previous one, just so if he dies the pardon is found. Maybe not every morning. How often does Hunter commit crimes?
The only reason anyone wants to prosecute Hunter for anything is that he’s Joe’s kid. Well, that and some people believe the “Biden Crime Family” nonsense.
The usual idiots would howl with rage, a bunch of people will just say “must be nice to have a father who’s President” and most people just won’t care.
But, if worry for his kid is affecting Ol’ Joe’s decisions, he can just take those problems off the table. And he should.
@Stormy Dragon: It’s also true that Trump helped him enormously by actively discouraging his voters, many of whom are elderly, from voting by mail in the middle of a pandemic. Given how narrow the margin was in the decisive swing states, that alone almost certainly was enough to cost him re-election.
@charontwo:
Your graph is not of polling data, but pricing in fake money on manifold markets, one of those betting sites that claims to have the wisdom of the crowds.
It doesn’t reflect what a broad sampling of people want to happen, but what a tiny self-selected group of shitheads and douchebags think will happen. From a statistical standpoint, it’s garbage.
From a practical standpoint, if you were to print it onto a piece of paper, you would make the paper less valuable. And less absorbent, not that printer paper would make good toilet paper anyway.
@Michael Reynolds:
Story people who can’t seem to write an original interesting story to save their lives. Didn’t we just have a thread where you and others pointed out how unoriginal writers and artists are these days?
The media is quite literally owned by the billionare class at this point and all they care about is making more money. Under Trump they’ll get more clickbate articles AND tax cuts galore. Oh look even more deregulation so they can consolidate even more markets under one owner…
The path to victory was there but the democratic party is doing everything they can to kill it…
@Andy:
To win PA, WI, and MI even if the lose GA, AZ, and NV. I don’t think they can hold GA, but probably keep AZ and NV.
To foucs on Trump’s manifest weaknesses and the fact that he has yet to win the popular vote and that the GOP has underperformed, to @Jen:’s point.
Also to Jen’s point, since the Dems are all focused inward right now, they aren’t focusing on Trump.
Quite honestly, the Harris theory (or Masked Democrat) theory for victory is the same as Biden’s, just with more energy on the campaign trail.
@charontwo:
Which is why I fear #4 and a total self-inflicted shit-show.
@Andy:
I’d ask the anti-Biden side the same thing. As near as I can tell, they’re operating under the Underpants Gnome theory of victory, ie,
a) Replace Biden
b) ???
c) Great victory
Again, I don’t know what the answer here is, and I don’t know if Biden is fit. I do know that none of this helps, and if you come at the king, you best not miss, and some petty part of me would like to see Biden stick it out at this point just to spite the Biden-needs-to-withdraw crowd, even if that does ensure a Trump victory. Because the other folks sure aren’t helping either. Plus, it might lead to what is the stupidest outcome possible, which would be a Trump presidency and Democratic House and/or Senate.
And I’m not surprised that Biden is saying, very publicly, that he won’t be dropping out, as all the news articles were always sourced in a very weird way, people with knowledge of the situation, people who were on the phone call, and so on.
@Matt: To be fair, he was talking about other writers in that post.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yes, and also with a different set of pluses and minuses, which we don’t really understand at this moment. But they will certainly play a part, and for all we know, the minuses could outweigh the pluses. There are no minus-free unicorns on the bench, unfortunately.
I like Biden and don’t have a strong opinion on his staying in or not, but I do get annoyed with people who just blindly assert that he can’t win.
I’m also annoyed with all of the in-fighting.
@Andy:
Solid comment. Damn good points.
@Gustopher:
I honestly don’t think he will, or needs to. For whether he will, Democrats are the actually existing law and order party, the only one. Nor does he need to. All those Republicans saying all the prosecutions of Trump will be dropped if he loses? Projection. They’ll lose interest in Hunter as soon as Biden is no longer a candidate or incumbent.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have to say I am deeply ambivalent. I think @Andy has a point. The Biden team’s public statements strike me as no different from every anodyne statement from every losing campaign, ever.
It reminds me of the “Subway” Seinfeld episode. Jerry and naked guy argue about the myriad deficiencies in the Mets roster before finally agreeing that they both love their chances of winning the pennant.
@reid:
This! This has been my position all along. Plus that the fighting and that lack of agree over what Not Biden looks likes just makes it all worse.
@Kurtz:
Which I get. Although I think all Andy is offering is that since he thinks Biden will lose, the Dems may as well try something else,which I get, but also don’t think is all that profound.
And really do think Biden or Harris or Anybody Else has roughly the same theory of victory, +/- a lot of unknowns.
Biden is old, but he is the sitting president and is a white male.
Harris is younger and would be more energetic, but she is Black and a female.
And I just don’t buy the idea that Whitmer or someone else can just swoop in.
There’s a lot of frustration about the in-fighting amongst Democrats. I agree that in some respects, this is counterproductive. I wonder whether it could be any other way.
Most people think that Biden had a, er, suboptimal debate performance. This and its fallout was the tipping point for a lot of D-supporting folks. Some combination of he’s too old, he’s too cognitively compromised, he’s too ineffective as a campaigner, he’s polling poorly, etc.
Despite individual differences in the precise reasons for wanting Biden to bow out, I think it is a reasonable position to hold. And a reasonable position to argue for and try to persuade others to adopt — most importantly, Biden.
Stipulating this, how could this group effectively advocate for their position that doesn’t lead to in-fighting? Let’s say they do so quietly, behind the scenes. We know that the Biden campaign summarily rejected this notion.
So then what is the “he should bow out” group supposed to do? They truly believe that the best chance of beating Trump (an existential threat to all we hold dear) is for Biden to step aside. It seems unreasonable to expect (or demand) that this group should say: “hey, we tried, they said no, so I guess that’s the end of it.”
The question then arises: What should they do now (have done from there)? I have a hard time coming up with any path forward that does NOT lead to the in-fighting that people are so frustrated about.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Neither Biden or Harris or Anybody Else are prone to fascism. As theories of victory go, that’s a very good start.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I suppose I should clarify that I think the only viable replacement is Harris.
I think @Andy’s points are more detailed than that. Specifically, that Biden probably doesn’t deserve as much credit as he appears to be claiming for the 2022 midterms. The GOP nominated some batshit candidates in the primaries.
Moreover, while the top line results of polling show a close race, they appear to consistently show Biden is in the hole. I am definitely not claiming that they cannot win. But I also think @Andy is right that they don’t appear to have any kind of real plan. Just, “trust us” I guess. Sure, that applies to any replacement as well, but the potential replacement is not the one that needs a clear plan right now.
At one time, the fundraising advantage seemed to be a positive sign, but that’s gone as well. Of course, if @Jen and @Stormy Dragon are correct that some of the big money people have an issue with Harris, then the question is whether that’s already baked in.
That last point makes me wonder: did Harris piss off some rich Cali assholes? Are some of these people the same people who said Obama was unelectable during the 2008 primaries? And perhaps most salient and likely, are they angling for Newsom?
If it’s one or both of the latter two, my guess is they would end up falling in line if Biden stepped down and Harris took over.
One last point, usual caveats about polling in general, one poll, polling doesn’t always translate to the ballot box, etc. Per the AP-NORC poll, Biden and Trump are both -20+ in net favorability. Those numbers have been consistent for a long time. Harris is -5 with 9 answering not sure. I presume that those who answered know she is both POC and a woman.
Is it possible that within a month, she would be in the same place as Trump and Biden? Of course. But it is pretty hard to get any worse than that. (Sometimes I wonder if Hitler or Pol Pot or Pinochet would have similar favorability ratings. /joke. Sort of.)
If Biden’s big advantage is ‘Not Trump’, and his biggest disadvantage is a more severe version of one of Trump’s, then it seems like leverage for any other candidate to exploit.
In that case, the question is pick the one least likely to piss off key voting blocks. Bluntly, don’t piss off Black voters by passing over Harris for a White candidate through some intra-party chicanery. And it would be absolutely understandable for one to feel that way.
Even with all that, for the same reasons you present, I still don’t have a strong opinion. The most I can say is that a week ago, I leaned toward staying the course. I may slightly lean toward Biden passing the torch to Harris, but I refuse to use the word must.
@Kurtz:
Maybe?
Maybe?
Maybe?
Or, they are just still stung from contributing multiple millions to Hillary’s campaign, and are locked into the depressingly relevant mindset that maybe the US is too misogynistic to elect a woman to the top spot.
Ran across this today and thought many here might appreciate it. It’s an attempt to steel man Biden staying in the race and then arguing against the steel man for why he should step down. I think it’s a good summary of most of the arguments. But of course I would like it because it ultimately comes from someone with perspective similar to mine, so something to keep in mind.
https://open.substack.com/pub/exasperatedalien/p/steelmanning-the-case-for-biden
From the fine folks at WaPo: Kamala Harris’s first presidential campaign was a failure. Has she changed?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/20/harris-campaign-president-2020-2024/
Awesome. I know it’s something of a cliche to say this, but the Democrats are in disarray.
I’ve never found Harris to be a particularly good communicator, and there’s something about her that just irks me. But I loved Elizabeth Warren, and most people find her irksome, so I don’t put a lot of stock in what I find irksome*.
But, it’s Biden or maybe Harris and anything else is going to be a massive shit show. It’s nice to see “one Democratic strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity” already trying to tear her down.
I don’t really care whether it’s Biden or Harris. I’m nominally pro-Biden, but worry that Democrats have destroyed him. Plus he really is 50 billion years old. So, I’d be fine with Harris, because that’s what VPs are for — stepping in when there’s a problem.
Anyone who isn’t Harris, whose name is being tossed around as a potential nominee should do everyone a favor and say they are not interested and would not accept a nomination, or go secure a roughly $100M campaign war chest, and have lawyers figure out how to buy all the vendor contracts and other assets that the Biden-Harris campaign has.
Also, if it is Harris, I really hope she finds a VP I don’t find personally irksome. It would not be a dealbreaker for me, but I think she’s got the “people who like people I find irksome” constituency locked up and she could really use some balance.
Surely there’s an old, crotchety Senator or Governor or something who kind of stopped giving a shit what people think of him.**
——
*: Warren comes across as genuine, a bit earnest, and very professorial to me — she’s pretty much tailor made for communicating to me.
**: Hmm. Harris-Biden?
@Mimai: Simple. After talking to Biden, If Biden is so compromised, they go to the cabinet and try to convince them to invoke the 25th amendment. And if that doesn’t work, they shut up, and do the best they can with the hand they have. Because their choice at that point isn’t between Biden and the unicorn candidate, it’s between Biden and Biden who’s busy fighting a war on two fronts. These leaks to the press are just pissing Biden off and making it harder for him to win.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Whitmer and Newsom indicated they want no part of this mess. Smart.
I hear of Pelosi and others demanding Biden provide a victory plan. Seems obvious: turnout the base and target the ~10% that’s allegedly undecided in Trump v. Biden polls.
That plan is more graspable than the uncertainty yet offered by Dump Biden. July poll responses are not plan. Let’s just take a risk is not a plan.
Who is the candidate? We thought Kamala. Now Dump Biden folks like Zoe Lofgren, Steve Schmidt, Carville etc. are calling that a “coronation” and instead urging mini-primaries or a delegate battle. How would that work? Any plan for the attendant divisiveness and chaos besides wishcasting it will be fun! and energetic! or whatever? A floor battle has never = victory, the plan to make this time different?
Pelosi is now also calling for an open process, belatedly worried about the undemocratic optics of running on “MAGA threatens democracy” while overruling primary voters at the behest of billionaire donors. But also worried about consequences of passing over Kamala. “Kamala will probably win an open process” is not an actual plan for that. If Kamala doesn’t? What’s the plan for the fallout? For transferring campaign infrastructure? For raising enough money?
If Kamala, the plan for dealing with the orgy of sexist racism to follow? Pretending it doesn’t exist?
Biden runs uniquely well with older voters. They identify with him. Any plan to get that to transfer?
Republicans are already pledging legal challenges to any candidate change. Any plan for that? Our Trumpified court system sides with them…then what?
What’s the plan to convince key stakeholders currently hostile to this change: black voters, the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (whose PAC officially endorsed Biden yesterday), the state and local black women leaders now publicly going to bat for Biden-Harris? Ignore them? Tell them they’re being irrational, emotional, and don’t want to win?
It’s difficult to take seriously those claiming Biden has no plan for mitigating his known risks when they themselves offer only YOLO for their series of unknown unknowns. How can one demand of others what oneself has not provided?
@Kevin:
That part is relatively straightforward, if not simple. The problem is, not everyone in the “Biden should bow out” group have based their position on Biden being so cognitively compromised as to warrant the 25th amendment option.
Many think that he is cognitively capable of serving out his term. Others think that he is cognitively capable of serving a second term. And they think that he should bow out because, from their perspective, he is not the best candidate to beat Trump, whom they consider to be an existential threat.
And many (most?) of these folks are not pining for a unicorn candidate. Rather, they think that Harris is better able to defeat Trump. And that she has a viable path forward.
I think the “Biden should bow out” position is a reasonable one. And from the perspective of its adherents, the issue (must defeat Trump) is too important to merely: quietly ask Biden to step aside, and when he says “no,” just accept that rather than try to advocate more strongly (and publicly) for their position.
That is why I’m having trouble imagining that this process could have unfolded in a way that doesn’t result in in-fighting. I think both positions (he should stay vs. he should bow out) are reasonable and, given the stakes, both groups should advocate strongly for their position.
@DK:
With this, I agree.
I have long wished Carville would go the fuck away. As far as I’m concerned, he and Roger Stone should be paid to never appear in public again. As odious as Stone is, Carville annoys me almost as much. They are both cartoon characters–not the good kind.
@Mimai:
As much as it seems like I am talking out both sides of my mouth (Writing with two hands? Typing with both pinkies?) I agree with this. I just also happen to think that mini-primaries or a brokered convention carry serious downside risks. The former, in particular, seems absurd. I cannot imagine a world–the American voting systems (yes, plural) being what they are–wherein that would go well.
Moreover, and this bears repeating, every vote for Biden in the primaries is an implied vote for Harris. Given Biden’s age, that arguably means more than it did in, say, 2012.
As far as advocating strongly, sure. But some nuance is in order here. Strongly means making sound arguments. Sound argumentation does not demand arguing in a way that implies certainty–too many people confuse the two.
Not only is it important to acknowledge solid opposing arguments from a logical perspective, but it ends up being more persuasive. It is the basis of meaningful engagement–otherwise, it’s just two sides screaming past each other.
@Kurtz:
Good comment. #onbrand
Let me articulate what I failed to mention in earlier comments. Actually, I don’t need to articulate anything. Rather, I just need to say that I agree with this:
And I certainly agree that nuance and humility are in order. Indeed, I am 100% certain that they are the only way to productively engage this matter. 😉
I still think that this naturally leads to in-fighting. More productive / less destructive in-fighting? Yes, I think so. And in-fighting nonetheless.
If only the stakes weren’t so high, this would be great political theater. A great comedy, maybe, a hundred years from now.
@Mimai: I understand that, but at some point, the pundit class needs to understand that this isn’t about them. They don’t get to make the decision. They have a serious case of Main Character Syndrome. I understand they’re worried. I’m worried. My first daughter was born a few months before the 2016 election. I brought her to vote with me; I thought that some day I’d be able to tell her that she helped me cast a vote for the first woman elected president. Now I have two daughters, and I don’t know what sort of world I’m giving them.
The time to raise all these concerns, and run alternate candidates, and so on, is not now. Maybe it was four years ago. Maybe six months ago. Maybe they’re right, and if Biden drops out, we’ll be more likely to win, I don’t know. But I like the analogy @Jen made a few days ago: given a leaky boat, instead of patching the boat, they want to build a new boat instead. And we set sail tomorrow. Or the Brexit analogy; the people who supported Brexit sold all sorts of absurd promises that no one could keep, but it didn’t matter. People voted for the Brexit they imagined, and the reality of what could be achieved was far less.
And I’ve heard very few of the people that want Biden to drop out (not none, but very few) say that Harris is the only logical choice. They want a brokered convention, or mini-caucuses, or a series of TV debates, or . . . those just aren’t serious suggestions, given where we are. Their real problem isn’t with Biden, it’s with the fact that some large percentage of the population is willing to vote for Trump. I don’t understand those people at all, but they’re not going to change their mind. They haven’t changed their mind through rape allegations, through four years of chaos, a pandemic, an insurrection, a finding of rape beyond a reasonable doubt, mishandling classified documents, and on and on. There’s no magical candidate out there that’s going to make Trump voters change their mind. In a sane world, Biden would be well ahead of Trump; that’s not the world we live in. But what’s really not helpful is having a fight in public three months before the election that emphasizes the biggest real concern people have with Biden. I’m not saying they’re wrong to be worried. I’m saying they have a level of certainty about all of this that is totally unjustified, and they completely ignore/handwave all the complexity involved.
And I’m really not a conspiracy-minded person, but the way this has all happened is just weird.
@Kevin:
Really good comments, thanks.
I will only add that it’s not just the “pundit class” who is advocating (hoping) for Biden to bow out. They just get all the attention.
I’m thoroughly bored with the media’s persistent hysteria that Biden might drop out! But he says he won’t! Although some Democrats say he should! Here’s what might happen if he did! That literally has been the headline story for weeks, save for a brief interruption when some kid took a potshot at Trump and missed.
The fact is that after weeks of this negative media, and a few days after God saved Trump from a grisly public assassination followed by a comically fervent Republican revival meeting they called a convention:
Biden wins 48 times out of 100
That’s 538’s election prediction today.
I’ve yet to read a plausible case that anyone else could do better, and it’s increasingly obvious that half the “Joe Must Go!” brigade intend to dump Kamala Harris too.
I want to add that it seems like *all* of this was started by people who oppose the Democratic Party.
Lots of pundits and reporters who happily cover for Trump and who never report on the stakes of this race.
Followed by people whose plan is openly to destroy Harris after Biden, and to hand the nomination to [to be decided later], accompanied by useful idiots who think that the same forces trashing Biden do not have a campaign ready for Harris.
I want to add that it seems like *all* of this was started by people who oppose the Democratic Party.
Lots of pundits and reporters who happily cover for Trump and who never report on the stakes of this race.
Followed by people whose plan is openly to destroy Harris after Biden, and to hand the nomination to [to be decided later], accompanied by useful idiots who think that the same forces trashing Biden do not have a campaign ready for Harris.
Also, so many, if not all of the stories have a big headline, with nothing of substance in the body (e.g., ‘sources close to senior Dems say…’).
@Andy:
Exactly right. Nancy Pelosi is, in Democratic Party politics, usually the smartest person in the room. If Joe and his people aren’t listening to Pelosi, then it truly is over.
No, I’m not saying that a Harris-Whitmer (or whomever) ticket will win, but I am saying that I do not see things getting better for Biden between now and November. Joe sunk his ship with his debate performance.