I look at both sides of the Biden vs. Harris argument and conclude that we're not living in an Aaron Sorkin and Democrats have one choice -- stay the course
This entire discussion is illegitimate unless those urging Biden to step down can demonstrate two things. 1. that they have previously urged candidates to drop out after a single bad debate performance, and b. that they demanded Trump drop out after being convicted of 34 felonies. In what world is a bad debate performance against an equally bad debate performance worse than being charged with crimes in four jurisdictions and being found guilty of 34 felonies?
If they did neither of these things, I don't want to hear from them now that Biden "needs" to drop out. He doesn't. An honest pundit would be saying both candidates had an equally dismal debate performance. It won't move either's followers or voters but the media has feasted on Democrats' panic, fear, weakness and faithlessness. I'm sick of the media-driven hysteria over this blip. I know I will vote to keep American women human beings, something Trump has promised to end.
This is not a serious argument "unless you were consistent you're wrong and you're a liar"
I mean, sure, many people calling for Biden to withdraw didn't do so before. But they also want Trump to drop out too. The NY Times (much panned by Biden apologists) in its own article calls for Trump to withdraw. But we don't have any leverage over Trump: we do over Biden.
Here's the deal: BIDEN IS LOSING! We can debate how badly but he's behind! He's behind in a majority of national polls and a majority of state polls which he needs to win the electoral college. His only viable path to 270 right now is holding all the blue states bluer than Michigan, and then winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (or, I suppose, Arizona). That's an insanely narrow path to the presidency. Sure: the options other than Biden aren't initially promising, and if you're ahead then you don't rock the boat.
We aren't ahead. We're behind. To use sports as a metaphor (as Nate Silver did): we're behind a touchdown or a field goal with a quarter to play. Is Biden the guy you want going for a touchdown (because tying isn't enough)? No. Lord no. In the past I was swayed by that same argument you made (and made it myself), but I am not convinced anymore. I thought Biden would gain after a decent debate where he proved he was not, in fact, a drooling man in the throws of dementia. He failed this lowest of bar test (which isn't to say he proved he's mentally gone: but that performance was awful).
And again, this was Biden's strategy not mine! Biden planned an early debate to reset things and steady the boat. He instead made it worse, and put Biden farther behind. I see no reason to think things will get better. Your strategy is just 'hope the electorate changes its mind for reasons unrelated to the campaign' which, when you're losing, is a bad strategy.
So yes: give me Kamala Harris, who may still lose but at least offers the chance of victory. I don't see it right now with Biden, and that pains me to say because that means I was dead wrong to support his renomination when he announced he was running again.
You're right that Biden's likely behind right now ... but the problem is that there's no evidence that switching to Harris increases the Dems' chances. I can't get past that point and also the very real possibility that dumping Biden would hurt more than it helps.
I 100% agree asking Biden to withdraw is a risk and there’s a chance it hurts. But I don’t see how Biden changes the race; and the race as it stands is a losing one. Harris is not dramatically likely to change it but she’s more likely than Biden.
I guess what I am saying is I think the models showing Biden with a 33-50% chance of him winning are bullish. Harris may start with the same odds but I can see them increasing.
I think this is a completely legitimate argument but as noted above I'm not convinced that Harris's chances are better. But I also think it's a close call and I can be persuaded that she's a better bet.
What would persuade you that Harris a better bet? I'm sure she would do a great job as President and continue Biden's good work, but I worry not only about the risks of changing horses this late in the game, but also about the "Hillary" factor; i.e., the apparent antipathy that certain (male, generally) voters have toward any progressive female candidate, which explains why some Obama supporters switched to Orange Julius Caesar in 2016. Wouldn't Harris have the same problem?
I think Biden has a real chance at victory, but i agree with your core logic. We are behind. Minimizing uncertainty/ variance favors the leading candidates and that ain't us.
Harris would have a tough job but i think embracing her California prosecutor background when running against a felon is an way to summarize way to run to the center while keeping the focus on her opponent.
Lawrence O'Donnell (a producer of "The West Wing") has a very clear take on this "drop out" question that matches yours. I have also heard many folks say that they will vote for a vegetable or an empty chair over the Don-victed Felon. In my opinion, if the country really didn't want another Biden term, they would have kept the Felon off the ballot. Biden is about the best polar opposite of the Felon that we have in politics. He's honest, he's patriotic (not a fake patriot), God-fearing, devoted to his family, empathetic, etc....basically, the antithesis of the Orange Felon. Unfortunately, Biden is a human being and is less than perfect. And unsurprisingly, every other possible Democratic candidate is too. Of course, I wish that the State of the Union Biden had shown up in Atlanta, but he didn't. Biden is not an actor (like Reagan) but he has taken the job as POTUS seriously (as did Obama), and that job really ages its officeholders. We also have to keep in mind that the job of POTUS is not done by a single individual, it takes a good team. Biden has professionals and experts behind him. Again, they are human and flawed, but compare that team to the Felon's group of sycophants and boot-lickers. One debate is not indicative of the job they're vying for.
And we can't afford to keep the SCOTUS as it is. Only Biden can attempt that feat. (I'm thinking that now he can go ahead and commit a few "crimes" that would be covered under the new immunity ruling and would save the judicial system. Now's the time!)
Well put. The wall of calls from the "never trump" pundits never seems to coalesce around how if Biden does step aside, it will be Harris' race.
Every time I ask one of them about Harris, they all say she's gotta go too, and then they go back to wish-casting about their favorite Dem governor, or personality (Whitmer, Polis, Shapiro, et. alia) when the only one that has a national profile Gavin Newsom from California (where I live) would likely be one person Trump could beat badly enough to actually win the national vote total.
Look, Newsom is fine for CA, but he would be beaten line a drum in Fly-Over country, the south, and parts of the Northeast. No bueno all the way around.
The Democrats did this to themselves by keeping the primaries closed to other viable candidates, especially RFK,Jr. My vote will be for “none of the above”.
The primaries were not closed. Any Democrat could have run and two did. That no one did should tell you something -- that none believed they could defeat Biden in an open primary.
Excellent piece in this morning's Boston Globe by Kimberly Atkins Stohr, detailing all the things that would have to fall "magically into place without a hitch" if Biden were to step down. It just won't happen. This is not fantasy football.
I've been thinking a lot about this argument -- that the anti-Biden contingent is assuming that every bump in the road will be made smooth and the campaign will unfold in precisely the way they think. It's magical thinking,.
This is well argued. I am nervous of course. But I have thought it through and Biden should only leave the race if his polling collapses. And then Harris should replace him. But it has to be obvious. There are other reasons why it needs to be Harris. It’s the most small d democratic move because she has been on the ballot. I also read (please correct me if I am wrong) that only she can get the campaign $$ from the Biden campaign. All the others would start at $0. It’s not a great situation. I have felt sick with worry. But I think you, Josh Marshall and Jamelle Bouie have been the most rational amid the angst and panic among Democrats.
Why has not one of these elite columnists acknowledged this fact? It sounds to me like these other names being thrown around are nonstarters. For this very boring reason.
I mostly agree with your comments and conclusions. At this time I think that Biden's worst enemies are the Democrats that are so publicly doubting him. You site the steadiness of his polling with Democratic voters. The one problem that will plague Biden through out the campaign, is the fact that the debate is on video recordings. Those videos (of every stutter, stumble or pause) will be available (and advertised) as a constant reminder of his possible shortcomings, on any number of right wing/republican web sites.
I agree that we should keep Biden. The infighting that would happen if we put up other candidates would probably not be good for Democrats. I just hope he wins.
Agree on all counts. But the situation is dire. The other prospects aren't realistic. Joe needs to hit back hard, and he needs to do well in the next debate..
This entire discussion is illegitimate unless those urging Biden to step down can demonstrate two things. 1. that they have previously urged candidates to drop out after a single bad debate performance, and b. that they demanded Trump drop out after being convicted of 34 felonies. In what world is a bad debate performance against an equally bad debate performance worse than being charged with crimes in four jurisdictions and being found guilty of 34 felonies?
If they did neither of these things, I don't want to hear from them now that Biden "needs" to drop out. He doesn't. An honest pundit would be saying both candidates had an equally dismal debate performance. It won't move either's followers or voters but the media has feasted on Democrats' panic, fear, weakness and faithlessness. I'm sick of the media-driven hysteria over this blip. I know I will vote to keep American women human beings, something Trump has promised to end.
This is not a serious argument "unless you were consistent you're wrong and you're a liar"
I mean, sure, many people calling for Biden to withdraw didn't do so before. But they also want Trump to drop out too. The NY Times (much panned by Biden apologists) in its own article calls for Trump to withdraw. But we don't have any leverage over Trump: we do over Biden.
Here's the deal: BIDEN IS LOSING! We can debate how badly but he's behind! He's behind in a majority of national polls and a majority of state polls which he needs to win the electoral college. His only viable path to 270 right now is holding all the blue states bluer than Michigan, and then winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (or, I suppose, Arizona). That's an insanely narrow path to the presidency. Sure: the options other than Biden aren't initially promising, and if you're ahead then you don't rock the boat.
We aren't ahead. We're behind. To use sports as a metaphor (as Nate Silver did): we're behind a touchdown or a field goal with a quarter to play. Is Biden the guy you want going for a touchdown (because tying isn't enough)? No. Lord no. In the past I was swayed by that same argument you made (and made it myself), but I am not convinced anymore. I thought Biden would gain after a decent debate where he proved he was not, in fact, a drooling man in the throws of dementia. He failed this lowest of bar test (which isn't to say he proved he's mentally gone: but that performance was awful).
And again, this was Biden's strategy not mine! Biden planned an early debate to reset things and steady the boat. He instead made it worse, and put Biden farther behind. I see no reason to think things will get better. Your strategy is just 'hope the electorate changes its mind for reasons unrelated to the campaign' which, when you're losing, is a bad strategy.
So yes: give me Kamala Harris, who may still lose but at least offers the chance of victory. I don't see it right now with Biden, and that pains me to say because that means I was dead wrong to support his renomination when he announced he was running again.
You're right that Biden's likely behind right now ... but the problem is that there's no evidence that switching to Harris increases the Dems' chances. I can't get past that point and also the very real possibility that dumping Biden would hurt more than it helps.
I 100% agree asking Biden to withdraw is a risk and there’s a chance it hurts. But I don’t see how Biden changes the race; and the race as it stands is a losing one. Harris is not dramatically likely to change it but she’s more likely than Biden.
I guess what I am saying is I think the models showing Biden with a 33-50% chance of him winning are bullish. Harris may start with the same odds but I can see them increasing.
I think this is a completely legitimate argument but as noted above I'm not convinced that Harris's chances are better. But I also think it's a close call and I can be persuaded that she's a better bet.
What would persuade you that Harris a better bet? I'm sure she would do a great job as President and continue Biden's good work, but I worry not only about the risks of changing horses this late in the game, but also about the "Hillary" factor; i.e., the apparent antipathy that certain (male, generally) voters have toward any progressive female candidate, which explains why some Obama supporters switched to Orange Julius Caesar in 2016. Wouldn't Harris have the same problem?
I think Biden has a real chance at victory, but i agree with your core logic. We are behind. Minimizing uncertainty/ variance favors the leading candidates and that ain't us.
Harris would have a tough job but i think embracing her California prosecutor background when running against a felon is an way to summarize way to run to the center while keeping the focus on her opponent.
Man you need to read this https://open.substack.com/pub/simonwdc?r=ezt0e&utm_medium=ios
Get a grip. We’re not losing. Roevember is coming November 5.
I subscribe to "Hopium" Chronicles. I've read his work, I am unconvinced
I would take everything Simon says with a grain of salt. His entire form of politicla argumentation amounts to motivated reasoning.
Lawrence O'Donnell (a producer of "The West Wing") has a very clear take on this "drop out" question that matches yours. I have also heard many folks say that they will vote for a vegetable or an empty chair over the Don-victed Felon. In my opinion, if the country really didn't want another Biden term, they would have kept the Felon off the ballot. Biden is about the best polar opposite of the Felon that we have in politics. He's honest, he's patriotic (not a fake patriot), God-fearing, devoted to his family, empathetic, etc....basically, the antithesis of the Orange Felon. Unfortunately, Biden is a human being and is less than perfect. And unsurprisingly, every other possible Democratic candidate is too. Of course, I wish that the State of the Union Biden had shown up in Atlanta, but he didn't. Biden is not an actor (like Reagan) but he has taken the job as POTUS seriously (as did Obama), and that job really ages its officeholders. We also have to keep in mind that the job of POTUS is not done by a single individual, it takes a good team. Biden has professionals and experts behind him. Again, they are human and flawed, but compare that team to the Felon's group of sycophants and boot-lickers. One debate is not indicative of the job they're vying for.
And we can't afford to keep the SCOTUS as it is. Only Biden can attempt that feat. (I'm thinking that now he can go ahead and commit a few "crimes" that would be covered under the new immunity ruling and would save the judicial system. Now's the time!)
Well put. The wall of calls from the "never trump" pundits never seems to coalesce around how if Biden does step aside, it will be Harris' race.
Every time I ask one of them about Harris, they all say she's gotta go too, and then they go back to wish-casting about their favorite Dem governor, or personality (Whitmer, Polis, Shapiro, et. alia) when the only one that has a national profile Gavin Newsom from California (where I live) would likely be one person Trump could beat badly enough to actually win the national vote total.
Look, Newsom is fine for CA, but he would be beaten line a drum in Fly-Over country, the south, and parts of the Northeast. No bueno all the way around.
The Democrats did this to themselves by keeping the primaries closed to other viable candidates, especially RFK,Jr. My vote will be for “none of the above”.
The primaries were not closed. Any Democrat could have run and two did. That no one did should tell you something -- that none believed they could defeat Biden in an open primary.
Excellent piece in this morning's Boston Globe by Kimberly Atkins Stohr, detailing all the things that would have to fall "magically into place without a hitch" if Biden were to step down. It just won't happen. This is not fantasy football.
I've been thinking a lot about this argument -- that the anti-Biden contingent is assuming that every bump in the road will be made smooth and the campaign will unfold in precisely the way they think. It's magical thinking,.
Trump is unsuitable to be President in every way. It's CRAZY that he is even a candidate.
Biden has many good reasons to continue, but his obvious declining abilities also make him unsuitable for such a critical position.
Watching this car crash from far away is frightening. The US political system is so far off track and impacting so much of the rest of the world.
This is well argued. I am nervous of course. But I have thought it through and Biden should only leave the race if his polling collapses. And then Harris should replace him. But it has to be obvious. There are other reasons why it needs to be Harris. It’s the most small d democratic move because she has been on the ballot. I also read (please correct me if I am wrong) that only she can get the campaign $$ from the Biden campaign. All the others would start at $0. It’s not a great situation. I have felt sick with worry. But I think you, Josh Marshall and Jamelle Bouie have been the most rational amid the angst and panic among Democrats.
"I also read (please correct me if I am wrong) that only she can get the campaign $$ from the Biden campaign."
That is correct. Any Dem candidate other than Biden or Harris would start the Fall campaign with no money.
Why has not one of these elite columnists acknowledged this fact? It sounds to me like these other names being thrown around are nonstarters. For this very boring reason.
I mostly agree with your comments and conclusions. At this time I think that Biden's worst enemies are the Democrats that are so publicly doubting him. You site the steadiness of his polling with Democratic voters. The one problem that will plague Biden through out the campaign, is the fact that the debate is on video recordings. Those videos (of every stutter, stumble or pause) will be available (and advertised) as a constant reminder of his possible shortcomings, on any number of right wing/republican web sites.
I agree that we should keep Biden. The infighting that would happen if we put up other candidates would probably not be good for Democrats. I just hope he wins.
Agree on all counts. But the situation is dire. The other prospects aren't realistic. Joe needs to hit back hard, and he needs to do well in the next debate..