Once people take the L on Biden, they need to take the L on rushing to support Kamala.
And it was the same people, right? Seems like a huge fraction of the people who supported Biden until the last possible moment then said there was no time for looking at anyone other than Kamala.
One bad decision after another.
On the other side, the people who worked to push Biden out were also the ones pushing keeping options open.
Obama, Nancy, Schumer, the NY Times. They all spoke out against Biden, and were in favor of an open process. They were the last to endorse Kamala, when all other hope had been lost.
They were right both times.
I never bought the "There's not enough time" argument. 107 days was too much time for Kamala. Every additional day made her newness wear off, and many of us were just clenching our teeth the whole time waiting for the disaster to come.
You have not explained how someone other than Harris could have been selected at the extremely late date at which Biden dropped out. I agree that she wasn't an optimal candidate -- most Trump voters regarded the economy as the most important issue, and they blamed the Biden administration (which included Harris) for the high inflation in the early years of Biden's term. But given the timing, it was simply impossible for the party to unite behind anyone other than Harris at that late date. The fault is with Biden and his advisors for concealing his infirmities, not with the decision to accept Harris as a lesser of evils.
Codger -- Suppose I had 10 candidates, and for each I had
- A speech where they describe their vision for the country
- A hard interview from a good interviewer
- An oppo file containing all the negatives and dirt that would be used against them.
Figure 3 hours of material to review on each candidate.
How hard would it be to separate the good ones from the bad?
You might not find the best person, but I'm pretty sure Kamala would look terrible (in comparison) if you put her through this. All her weakness would have been seen clearly.
If the Democrats wanted to do it, they could get through this whole process in 30 days, including time to choose the initial ten and time for delegates to debate between themselves.
Using 107 days as the time budget, that would leave over 2 months of campaigning. That's plenty, really.
Kamala's problem was not lack of time or money. It was that swing voters didn't like her.
At the time that Biden dropped out -- less than a month before the convention -- there was no way to hold primaries in every state to identify a candidate that the VOTERS wanted. The convention delegates would have disagreed about who was the best candidate, and even if they could have agreed, the public would have been reluctant to accept whomever they finally decided upon. Harris and Biden were a ticket, and people who voted for Biden in the primaries were voting for Harris as the person to succeed him if he became mentally incompetent. At the late date at which he dropped out, there was no way to choose anyone else.
Bullcrap. The contrary, the one thing Democrats and Partisans and Internet Mumblers over-value is the buzzword Democracy without attention to the actual mechanics of party mechanisms and the reality of 50 odd legal - that the mirage of One National system is a mirage, a semi-Hollywood fiction.
More Party structure for both of Repubicans and Democrats and less faux Democracy of infime minority (as in numerical groups not identity groups) in pseudo-democratic primaries would help immensely avoid many ofthe issues now being seen in the 21st century
I agree; I always did. It was obvious from the night of the debate that they had a situation, and were going to have to solve it quick and dirty. If ever there was a time for a smoke-filled room and party bosses, this was it, and that's what we got. I don't blame them. I think the Dems did the best they could with what they had to work with.
The problem being in part that the "reforms" of the 1970s have made the old infrastructure inoperable - the reality of the legal mechanics, ability to control Party infrastructure and Brand was destroyed via naive reforms based on sloganeering "more democracy"
I can remember all that. It happened after the disastrous 1968 Democratic National Convention. I agree, it really didn't work well to replace the professional pols with cheering amateurs.
I expect it was all focus grouped to death. Probably nothing else actually helped and didn't hurt vote count in another segment.
There was actually a lot of meat in her platform, but it is hard to deliver substantial material in the face of a Gish gallop, and a press corp that only wanted to cover the horse race.
The Democratic Party installed Harris out of fear. Had they tossed her, they'd have had to replace her with a white man. If they'd done that, they'd have lost by at least 10 points, and they knew it.
I don't think that works. Trump was white, and he won; Biden was a white man, and he won the election before. That Harris was the Token VP was known to all and is now a practice dead out of fashion, so I can't see how going on with the usual practice for centuries and running white men is likely to doom a party.
There is no single real thing that is The Democratic Party.
There are 50 odd States each with their own rule set, and 50odd Party orgs at the State level plus innumerable Groups
It is a fundamental error that people have that (a) there is One Thing that is actually a deciding thing for either of the the Dem or Rep ("wonderful" fruit of the Progressives "reforms" of the 70s), (b) there is One Thing that is the deciding route for elections in the United States when in fact there is 50, (c) that despite our illusion of national elections, it's really 50 things.
Given the mechanical-legal-logistical the collective defaulting at the very late date of the multiple party branded actors made sense.
And the idea simply subbing in a White Guy would have seen a total flip around is nonsense. Unless said White Guy was totally read to bag on Biden and rupture from past (harldy a foregone conclusion just on doing inversion of Identity Politics) the result almost certainly would have been the same.
The fundamental problem was not the fictional "They"' had a "Knew it" but that the urbane urban college educated Professional Class dominant inside of Democratic party groups were (and to extent remain) heavily all in on vie / lens that causes them fundamental blindness to how out of touch they are from the votes they need to win over, particularly outside of the Urbane Urban / Suburban zones. The whole reversion post Summer to "Democracy In Danger" (sure yes, but not a goddamn successful pitch to win over new votes, you already had everyone concerned by that on-board) and Biden-campaign pref on messaging reflects that.
If a They actually had a "Knew It" the problem would be fundamentally easier - the problem is harder to solve.
the fictio, the mirage of a They is also part of the problem, Americans just don't grok that under a façade of a unified system there's actually a weird-ass frankenstein 18th-19th century with some 20th century centralisation patchwork on electoral
I totally agree…better voter turnout and a few slightly more attuned voters and we are not living this nightmare. Can the circular firing please stop so we can listen for the really dangerous incoming barrage?
I think admitting Biden was senile and invalid, and reassessing whether Kamala was a good strategic call, are not the same kind of admitting the "L". I mean throw Biden under the bus. One Kamala problem is that she was in the coverup and she got caught, as were Pelosi and Schumer. To Americans they're just the people propping up Biden so they could be in charge, before swapping in Kamala when they got caught.
well if he didn't finally beat medicare, maybe they could.
seriously this is a delulu-tier defense. it's funny enough that I'll reply a while but it's really sad that our party thinks "he's not that senile" and "this election is about democracy" were not self-defeating messages.
Anyone who saw the debate knew that Biden was not merely too old. I don't care what his diagnosis was; he was no longer capable of expressing his views coherently. That being the case, he was no longer capable of defeating Trump. I watched both my parents go through dementia; I know there was something seriously wrong with Biden.
senile, addled, feeble-minded, losing it, gone soft in the head, not all there, lost his marbles, dotty, muddled, decrepit, enfeebled, in one's dotage, second childhood, mental decay, loss of faculties, cognitive collapse, losing one's mind, atrophying, mental deterioration, brain decay, mental disintegration, dementia, cognitive decline, neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, cerebral atrophy
which of these words are not gatekept by DSM-5, and you grant normal people permission to use, when discussing how Biden was unfit for office no later than June 2024?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think it's entirely possible that Kamala could have been a good President. But she was undeniably a terrible Presidential candidate and that's critical to getting the job.
The election was like a football game where the Blue Team was down by 18 points at the 2-minute warning. The coach benched the starting quarterback and put in the backup QB. To most everyone's surprise the backup QB rallied the Blue Team and scored two touchdowns. But still down by 4 as the clock expires the backup QB throws a Hail Mary pass into the end zone. But alas, it falls harmlessly incomplete. Red Team wins. Afterward many sportswriters blame the backup QB for the loss.
Agreed. The qualities of being a good President and the qualities of being a good candidate aren’t the same. Harris was a bad candidate in 2020. That didn’t mean that she couldn’t learn from past errors and become a better candidate in 2024. In fact, I thought the first month of her campaign was run pretty well (though that was always going to be the easiest part). The selection of Walz as her running mate was the first sign to me that she was falling back on old bad habits and then things just got worse from there (and she was punished for being worse by the steadily declining approval numbers).
Would another D candidate have performed better? Certainly could have, IMO, but that supposes a universe where Biden withdraws earlier there was a standard primary process and that better D candidate emerged under those conditions. Trump was not that a strong candidate; although he was probably going to beat a “generic D” candidate, IMO he would have lost to any “plus” D candidate. We’ll never know if such a candidate would have emerged from a 2024 primary field, because there wasn’t one. The timing of Biden’s withdrawal made it impossible to have one. Had the D establishment fallen behind someone other than the sitting Vice President, it would have ruptured the party and made it impossible for that other person to be successful.
At this point, though, I think we know all we need to know about KH the presidential candidate. She’s unelectable. I don’t think that the D party will be very excited about nominating her again, but she has the name recognition and network to be a very competitive candidate in the D primaries.
Eh - this seems to completely ignore the logistics of setting up some mini comp - where there is not one single national machinery legally nor operationally. Even assuming everyone jumps on board (which wasn't going to happen given Biden hard-core didn't want to let go) getting a full mechanic in place would have burned mega time and without doubt fed a Democrats in Disarray narrative.
By the time Biden withdrew things were fucked in various hard-coded logistical ways.
A bet on Harris was the reasonable bet to make at that late date. Earlier the arguments were different, but hard-logistics of 50 odd operations each one under different State laws, divergences - everyone hand waiving away seems to think there is some kind of central mechanism that could make things work.
This of course goes back to more blame on Biden for fucking things up from A to Z.
(and then Harris for not being a risk-taker as she had to be - and not dumping the Biden Bunglers)
Searched for a good comment to add to / no avail. Ergo adding here. Would love to start a convo about decision making. Not about right or wrong, cause nothing is ever that clear. Guilty...I went full tilt (live in CLT). How do we build the magnetic center to slow and shrink the pendulum swing?
I disagree. By the time Biden withdrew from the campaign, the Democratic party became boxed into Kamala Harris being the only feasible candidate. There wasn’t enough time to have a primary, so it was going to be the pick of the “smoke-filled room,” so to speak. If the sitting vice president - who happened to a woman of color - was somehow NOT going to get this nod, it would have ruptured the party and given whomever they did pick no chance.
No, KH is/was *not* a good presidential candidate, don’t get me wrong. However, unless she was to comprehend that truth and voluntarily pull herself from contention (something that seemed unlikely at the time, and appears less likely now, considering that all signs point to her obliviously gearing up to run *again*, despite the self-inflicted disaster of 2024), the Democratic party had no other option. Calling it a “bad decision” is to ignore the reality of party politics - with that amount of time left, it was the only decision.
Well, they all stick their hat on a pole and poke it hopefully out there a time or two --- Pence did, and even Dan Quayle, and they are both plainly unsuitable; Kamala will no doubt do the same, because apparently people really, really want to be president. But she's impossible and won't run again, IMO. To me the worst thing was that no one would work with her; her staff was in a revolving door. That's a REAL bad sign for a politician.
What makes you think Democrats would have done as well with another candidate? Not running Biden/Harris would have been viewed as an admission by Democrats that they failed in meeting their 2020 promises. Which swing voters would have punished them for, most probably resulting in a larger popular vote victory and more GOP seats in the House.
Okay, "the democrats" and Mr. Silver need to let Biden go. I mean, Mr. Silver, you did not need to write this very long post about Biden at this point in time despite talking about it at Thanksgiving. As you say, you previously wrote a lot, perhaps too much? about your theories on why the democrats lost, but we should all agree to stop rehashing Biden's stepdown. Let Joe rest. Happy Holidays.
Hard disagree. It is essential that the democrats not repeat this bullshit, and the best way to prevent it is to remind them that the leadership is not to be trusted.
There isn't much criticism of Joe himself in this article. I'm happy to let Joe rest, he had a long career of public service and deserves it.
But the pundits and other members of the political class who were enablers of the enormously costly mistake that was Joe's reelection attempt still need to be called to task. As pointed out in this article, many are still actively refusing to admit any errors. Surely the first step on the path to doing better next time is either cutting such people out of decision making, or forcing them to face and admit their mistakes.
So I think the only expiration date on such criticism is the day they change their tune, or else are so completely marginalized as to be politically irrelevant.
I still think Biden defenders are weighing the party down. They're trying to sell this vision of democracy where voters don't have a right to see the president, or a right to a president who's capable of holding office, or a right to know who's in the inner circle actually making decisions. And we're supposed to be the ones complaining about democratic erosion. You really should try steelmanning the case Biden attempted coup and ask what it looks like to an American with the totally reasonable expectation that they vote for the person who runs the country, while seeing with their own eyes that that's not what was happening.
Hard disagree. This post isn't really about Biden, but rather about certain people in the left-wing progressive media who deluded themselves into dismissing clear and obvious problems about Biden, and powerful background operatives in democratic politics like Tanden who unfortunately still have jobs despite the monumental fuckups. Expecting people to acknowledge their fuckups and grow should be the bare minimum for having a job in the media. And if you believe that democracy was/is on the line, having people like Tanden still working in democratic politics despite their role in this monumental fuckup and refusal to admit any wrongdoing/grow is completely unacceptable.
Can't agree with that ---- it's very important IMO for people never, never to grovel and apologize. As Disraeli said: "Never apologize, never explain."
Anyone who is fool enough to apologize is just inviting their enemies to destroy them. It's giving permission. Why give these awful people in the public permission to destroy you? Bad move. Say it loud and then never take it back. Important life rule.
I don't think any individual Democratic candidate for high office needs to go out of their way to self-flagellate about this, but if asked "Was it a mistake for Biden to run for President at the age of 82?" it should be an easy layup to say "Yes." Winning elections needs to be in the front seat and protecting Biden's ego shouldn't even be in the car.
The big thing people seem to be forgetting is IMO a good observation by the Dem pols ----- he was PRESIDENT. Biden may have had his, ahem, off nights, but he knew he wanted to run and he's PRESIDENT: he gets to say!! That's just how it works. Same deal with "too late." Of course it was too late, but Joe wanted to continue to be president, to run himself, and because he was president, he did get to decide.
Late, as it turned out. But to do anything about that would have been a coup d'etat, and that is a legal no-no (it came pretty close anyway, I suspect!).
I believe that Jill, Hunter and Biden's advisers were "fluffers"! People who wanted to keep Joe's ego up. They were the "yes" team and encouraged Biden. Biden had become even more arrogant, blind, and deaf when he announced his decision to run in April 2023, while polling showed him in terrible shape. Biden had little charisma and was a lifelong politician. He closeted himself with his yes team. He owns the key reason that Lying King Donald and his MAGA shills control Congress.
We need to recognize Biden's failures in personality, judgment and policies. Biden's team failed miserably in the Afghanistan exit, inflation, immigration, Israel/Gaza, DEI, and identity politics. His policies, encouraged by some progressives, are vote killers! His progressive supporters don't accept that "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Democrats need to move towards (semi) open primaries to enable unaffiliated voters to enter the Democratic tent, and ranked choice voting. The current system of electing state and federal legislators, inherited from the UK, is archaic, undemocratic and loses elections!
Hey, no individual Democratic candidate for high office should ever be anything other than arrogant, smug, and idiotic, while saying that about his opponent. LOL
I think folks like Tanden and Rupar really annoys me bc they are like poster children of those who are pathologically unable to acknowledge mistakes in any circumstance - like you prob get social media clout that way but I think it is really detrimental to all of us…
The Democrats’ coverup of Biden’s frailties, while clearly an abomination, was NOT the scandal of the 2024 election. The epic fail was ignoring the majorities of their OWN VOTERS who wanted a different nominee. How does a party think it’s ok - politically, strategically, or morally - to just straight up middle finger their constituents? Dean Phillips HANDED THEM ON A SILVER FUCKING PLATTER the option of running a legit primary, but instead of backing the moderate 50-something businessman who’d flipped a red district blue, they threw Phillips under the bus and stuck with their 38% approval rated 81 year old. It was not as though Phillips had to become the eventual nominee; all it would have taken was a few Sens and Reps to publicly go to NH and say, “huh, who’s this Phillips guy, Democrats, America, let’s see what he has to offer.” No skin off anyone’s nose, and that’s all it would have taken to blow up the primary, maybe get some debates booked, and get Biden the fuck out of the race in January instead of July.
And for those saying this issue is irrelevant: take a look at the leaderboard of potential Dem nominees - Newsome, Pritzker, Whitmer (maybe less so now), even AOC - they ALL went out there like a bunch of idiot bobbleheads and told the American people, “Joe Biden! He’s our man!” If you’ve DEMONSTRATED that you think it’s ok to ignore your voters when selecting our presidential nominee - while at the same time telling us that the opposition are fascists - frankly, you’re too dumb to run the country. And if these people think that their decisions won’t come back to bite them in the ass at, let’s say, a Democratic primary debate - well, to quote Vincent Vega, excuse the past tense, but they shoulda fucking better known better.
Hi CJ. If that’s true, the progressives have no leg to stand on - Bernie was writing editorials to the NYT supporting Biden’s candidacy AFTER the debate.
And the Rs would be smart to make this a wedge, bc it truly was colossally poor decision-making. If I’m Beshear or Shapiro, who maybe didn’t stand up to Biden but certainly weren’t there like Newsom clapping him on the back - I’d sure as shit bring this up. That’s why the Dems would be smart to collectively own it NOW and neutralize it as best they can.
Fair. But who are the progressives who are pushing this as an issue? Asking genuinely. AOC can’t really do it - she was Ridin with Biden the whole time.
Ironic, bc at least Pelosi was more than anyone pushing on Biden to drop out after the debate. Not that I wanted her to run again - she did the right thing by retiring.
Essentially the entire party fucked up in 2024. But they could parlay this into a talking point - “we as a party have failed to listen to the voters. We understand that now, better than ever, and we are committed to showing voters that we ARE listening by“ blah blah blah insert bold, creative and meaningful idea(s) here.
IRON LAW: "You can always tell a 'progressive' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single god damn thing. Why? Because they are smarter and better than everyone else." And they're the political equivalent of vegans (wait, a lot of them ARE vegans): They always let you know it. The corollary is just as true: No 'progressive' will EVER admit that they were wrong, let alone arrogant, smug, and a lot dumber than they make themselves out to be.
So it went with Senile Joe Biden, who was senile even before he took office in '21. The word is "Parkinsonism," and anyone having experience with Parkinson's patients or relatives saw it right away. To this day, they go claws-out at anyone who states the obvious, which brings up another IRON LAW: No one is as vicious as a "progressive," other than Donald Trump when he's pissed off.
Now on to other things.
1. Yes, Nuzzi is a media whore. No shortage of them, especially on the "progressive" side, but certainly not only there.
2. "On background" and "off the record" is media whoring without the squirt, but whoring nonetheless. Probably worse, because that sort of whoring trades trust for the illusion of access. One thing I do like about Archie Bunker Trump, the Rodeo Clown from Queens is that he does not appear to play that game. Maybe that's partly why the whores at CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYT, et. al. et. al. hate him so much. No cozying up.
3. "The mainstream media probably does lean left." Oh, Nate, you master of understatement!
4. "The media often went too far in normalizing Trump." I suppose, but Nate, you forgot to mention who started that. It was none other than Joe 'n Mika of MSNBC, who gave blowj ... I mean conducted fawning "interviews" like crazy in the spring of '16. Why? My guess, and that's all it is, is that those whores were acting on sotto voce orders from Camp Hillary to the effect that they thought Trump would be easy to beat. See my very first point up top about "progressives" being a lot dumber than they make themselves out to be.
5. "The Big Cope" is just another way of saying that a "progressive" will NEVER admit error, and will go claws-out at anyone who happens to tell them how obviously and egregiously wrong they were. See, if they accept that, then they might have to entertain the idea that they just might not be better and smarter than everyone else. And that is something up with they shall not put.
6. I'd never heard of Neeran Tanden until 10 minutes ago. She sounds like a real piece of work, but there are so many on the left, not to mention the right. Ha!
7. "Democrats should hold themselves to a higher standard than MAGA." A little late for that, given the "progressive" cheering for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and their rush to pin the attack on those two guardsmen on Trump for ordering the deployment in Washington, D.C. -- all while not saying squat about the New York governor's deployment of the Guard to NYC's subways. Face it, if the "progressives" don't actually hate the military and this country, they have been doing an Oscar-level imitation of it.
8. "In this house we believe ..." My favorite part of those signs is that they include science, while turning around and trying to tell us that a man can become a woman by taking hormones and getting cosmetic surgery. Holy seventh grade biology Batman, how laughable, stupid, and hypocritical can these "smarter" ones be?
9. I forget. I must be going senile. What's Biden's phone number so we can compare notes?
I read very little of this. It feels backward-looking to a unique situation which is unlikely to recur and gives off a redolence of obsession and private feuding. Nate, I'll continue to subscribe for the poll averages, but this is not for me valuable political commentary.
This is why I love Nate. I am really not interested in intermediate approval ratings or advanced NBA soccer metrics. I have BS insights into the industry I have worked in...don't have the same in the industries I haven't (such as political journalism). Don't care if it is "true." None of it is. Love the take. Word brother.
Pew validated voters polls show Harris matching Biden among white voters.
She lost because Trump gained minority voters (plus or minus polling variability).
I think that is a strong reason that she would have done better if she had more time to campaign, although the Progressives who were determined to tie her to Netanyahu's Gaza mess may never have come around in the numbers that Biden pulled.
As for "Taking the L", what 'L'? Biden's 4 years were better than Trump1 and will be better than Trump2 baring a miracle.
Biden may have only been "on" 6 hours per day, but he had skilled people in his team running their departments.
The Dems should take the 'L' when Reagan zealots finally admit that during Reagan's second term his chief policy advisors included Nancy and her astrologer.
I don't think you're right about Biden. Biden has a stutter so he had trouble putting words together. Stutters also come along with other scattered mistakes like walking the wrong way and stuff like that. It got worse as he got older as he was no longer quick enough mentally to hide it until it was an overwhelming disability. But, to me, he was all there mentally. I saw a lot of interviews and speeches and I didn't see anything that would indicate to me he didn't understand what was going on. He's reliably "one off" the mark when saying things, Zelensky as opposed to Putin. You can follow his thinking.
There are actually a lot of benefits to having an older President, especially when they are highly experienced like Biden. Maybe we should adjust our expectations of the President being just one type of person.
Regardless, he never was going to win just ignoring it and should have kept it to one term. But I really do think you're wrong about Biden. He just had a stutter and was no longer quick enough mentally to cover it, but his mind never slipped.
Exactly. And exhaustion and stress make these miscues more likely.
The other side of this is that small group conversations on clear topics make these kinds of misstatement much less likely, and easier to gloss over.
It is feasible to me that the people meeting him during his normal work hours saw Biden as being far more capable than the person who showed up at the debate.
Finally, the debate happened as early as it did because Biden's people pushed for it. If they thought it was going to go the way it did, it wouldn't have happened.
Ergo his advisors saw a different Biden in their day to day interactions with him.
It's true that Harris was not a successful Presidential candidate. There is no proof, however, that anyone else would have done better.
Also, criticism of her supposedly weak history as a candidate is simply not true. Prior to 2024, she ran in 6 elections and won them all: DA, DA, AG, AG, Sen, VP. Who had a better record?
I readily admit I got it wrong on Biden. I was mad at myself for months for believing he was up to it, but I no longer care and think this whole argument you're having with Tanden and others is pointless. The problem of age was unique to Biden. It won't matter one bit going forward. I don't know who Democrats will nominate in 2028, but whatever their liabilities, age won't be one of them.
I agree that the deadenders still defending him shouldn't be employed again, but they aren't likely to work in another administration anyway. It's a tiny number of people who are all very online. Outside of the online world they don't matter.
I don't think the problem is at all unique to Biden, potentially: Trump, for instance, is almost his age and Dems never forget that. People are getting terrifically old now and living VERY long and I suspect this will come up again and again.
I think you are getting a few things wrong with this piece.
For one, you seem to assume that in an alternate reality where Biden dropped out of the race and there was some a contested primary, that Democrats would have done as well as Harris did in the end. In today's era of voters punishing candidates and parties admitting mistakes, this alternate reality hedging would have been perceived as admitting that the Democrats and their 2020 ticket had failed. So, it's a stretch to think that Democrats could have done as well as Biden was doing pre-debate (consistently trailing for months by about 1.5%) or the same margin that Harris lost the general election.
Secondly, on March 7, 2024, Biden made GOP hecklers look silly when going back and forth during the State of the Union address. Biden had a history of sometimes speaking very clearly, sometimes stumbling badly for a while. A bad debate--really, a bad half hour of a debate--where he had trouble articulating his thoughts does not mean he was mentally incompetent. It did show that he was not up to a rigorous campaign. But campaigning and governing are two different things. We do not have evidence that he was generally not sharp. Nor evidence that he did not understand issues at a deep level. Nor that folks did and could not ask him for clarification when his speech was not crisp.
Thirdly, you identify the midterms as the point you think Biden's abilities to govern reached a tipping point. You cite his inability after then to pass legislation as evidence of mental inability. But recall that the GOP flipped the House in those midterms. In the first two years, most of Biden's legislative victories were done on pure party line votes. Reverse the congresses in which Democrats held the House, and the results would have also been reversed.
And finally, Democrats lost this election on issues: The economy; the migration issues, Covid 19 mandates and censorhip of opposition; perceived over regulation and overspending; and social issues. A slight majority of voters thought this was the wrong direction. These issues left swing voters thinking the Democrats were too far left. What candidate would have articulated a different, more moderate agenda and been able to win the nomination? This is a really a key point. The Democrats' problem is not acknowledging that Biden was too old; it's acknowledging that that didn't cost them the election. As a result, Democrats are not changing their issue positions, which sets MAGA up well for the 2028 Presidential election.
Nate: Stop urging us to accept the rightness of your ‘angle’ and wanting absolution on your reporting. Start reflecting: stop deflecting. Biden showed age; Trump shows narcissism, cruelty and dementia. Report accurately on both men. Then move on!!!
He’s not gonna drop the subject, nor should he, while the same people who were leading the party back then continue to lead the party now. Nate could give a shit about Biden - he’s irrelevant. But Gavin Newsom? Who vocally backed Biden throughout the campaign and has yet to own it? Yeah, that’s a problem, esp if sheep Dem primary voters trot him out for the general in 2028.
The "villain" argument is not that Biden was a terrible President. It's that he chose to run again when he was incapable of doing so successfully which doomed the party.
What makes someone a good Presidential CANDIDATE is the ability to get people to vote for them to be President. The fact that you believe Biden was a good President and had a good record to run on just strengthens the argument of those who believes he shouldn't have run again because he could no longer effectively communicate.
The Democrats could have won last year. Trump was a terrible President and a despicable figure, who has a strong base but who independents distrust. The fact that he still won is an incredible indictment of the leadership of the Democratic party from 2022-2024.
CJ, I agree with Gordon. And I remember that Biden pledged to be a one term president. Unfortunately for him, his legacy will be defined by going back on that pledge and giving us Trump 2.0.
Apparently it's a lot of fun being pretzeldent. Joe went back on his promise to get to continue to be president, and Trump moved Heaven and earth to win again after a whole-term interruption.
There wasn't a lane for Harris in 2019, she saw that and made the right political call to get out early. And yes, her campaign had problems, in part because she had a very weak team east of the Rockies.
If she stays in the 2020 race she doesn't get the VP nod.
Since you have defined all losing candidates as terrible, your tautology of course applies to Harris.
Literally every sentence in this comment is wrong or shows a lack of judgement.
- There was certainly "a lane" for Harris in 2019. It's the reason that folks like me were early supporters of her candidacy at that time. Unfortunately, she was such a terrible campaigner that the more time she spent on the campaign trail, the less folks liked her. That was her problem, not the lack of "a lane."
- The fact that she had "weak team east of the Rockies" is not a defense; it's an indictment. A critical part of being an effective candidate is hiring (and motivating) a good team.
- If Harris is a better candidate and stays in the race in 2020 longer that doesn't prevent her from being selected as VP. There are tons of examples of nominees selecting the runner up in the primaries to be their VP. Biden essentially committed himself to selecting a Black woman. The only reason that anyone besides Harris was even considered is because she had been such a lousy campaigner that it had damaged her reputation.
- I haven't defined all losing candidates as terrible. I don't think Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Bob Dole, or Al Gore were bad candidates; they just ran against popular incumbents or strong opposition. And I don't even think Hillary was a bad candidate, although she did carry a lot of baggage that I think was her undoing.
Kamala was a bad candidate. Joe Biden in 2024 was a terrible candidate (and to be honest, he was only mediocre throughout his entire career).
Biden was a good President for most of his term, but that doesn't excuse his decision to conceal evidence of his mental decline near the end of his term until the debate made it painfully obvious to me and everyone else. Had he withdrawn earlier, the party could have had a democratic selection process that would have enabled Democratic voters to pick someone who had a better chance of winning than Harris. THAT is how democracy is supposed to work.
Biden could not possibly have decided to "conceal evidence of his mental decline" because we know for sure Biden did not think at any time that he had any mental decline! Apparently he still doesn't think so --- there was a story about that last week, IIRC.
I very much doubt that anyone with senility is able to recognize that.
Sure in some ideal world something different might have happened. Or maybe the same outcome happens, and the loss is even larger because Harris has to spend 4 months pretending to be a Progressive.
But in democracy, adults vote among the options on the ballot.
Once people take the L on Biden, they need to take the L on rushing to support Kamala.
And it was the same people, right? Seems like a huge fraction of the people who supported Biden until the last possible moment then said there was no time for looking at anyone other than Kamala.
One bad decision after another.
On the other side, the people who worked to push Biden out were also the ones pushing keeping options open.
Obama, Nancy, Schumer, the NY Times. They all spoke out against Biden, and were in favor of an open process. They were the last to endorse Kamala, when all other hope had been lost.
They were right both times.
I never bought the "There's not enough time" argument. 107 days was too much time for Kamala. Every additional day made her newness wear off, and many of us were just clenching our teeth the whole time waiting for the disaster to come.
You have not explained how someone other than Harris could have been selected at the extremely late date at which Biden dropped out. I agree that she wasn't an optimal candidate -- most Trump voters regarded the economy as the most important issue, and they blamed the Biden administration (which included Harris) for the high inflation in the early years of Biden's term. But given the timing, it was simply impossible for the party to unite behind anyone other than Harris at that late date. The fault is with Biden and his advisors for concealing his infirmities, not with the decision to accept Harris as a lesser of evils.
Codger -- Suppose I had 10 candidates, and for each I had
- A speech where they describe their vision for the country
- A hard interview from a good interviewer
- An oppo file containing all the negatives and dirt that would be used against them.
Figure 3 hours of material to review on each candidate.
How hard would it be to separate the good ones from the bad?
You might not find the best person, but I'm pretty sure Kamala would look terrible (in comparison) if you put her through this. All her weakness would have been seen clearly.
If the Democrats wanted to do it, they could get through this whole process in 30 days, including time to choose the initial ten and time for delegates to debate between themselves.
Using 107 days as the time budget, that would leave over 2 months of campaigning. That's plenty, really.
Kamala's problem was not lack of time or money. It was that swing voters didn't like her.
At the time that Biden dropped out -- less than a month before the convention -- there was no way to hold primaries in every state to identify a candidate that the VOTERS wanted. The convention delegates would have disagreed about who was the best candidate, and even if they could have agreed, the public would have been reluctant to accept whomever they finally decided upon. Harris and Biden were a ticket, and people who voted for Biden in the primaries were voting for Harris as the person to succeed him if he became mentally incompetent. At the late date at which he dropped out, there was no way to choose anyone else.
Correct. If there's one thing that the Democratic Party fears like a vampire fears sunlight, it's democracy.
Bullcrap. The contrary, the one thing Democrats and Partisans and Internet Mumblers over-value is the buzzword Democracy without attention to the actual mechanics of party mechanisms and the reality of 50 odd legal - that the mirage of One National system is a mirage, a semi-Hollywood fiction.
More Party structure for both of Repubicans and Democrats and less faux Democracy of infime minority (as in numerical groups not identity groups) in pseudo-democratic primaries would help immensely avoid many ofthe issues now being seen in the 21st century
I agree; I always did. It was obvious from the night of the debate that they had a situation, and were going to have to solve it quick and dirty. If ever there was a time for a smoke-filled room and party bosses, this was it, and that's what we got. I don't blame them. I think the Dems did the best they could with what they had to work with.
The problem being in part that the "reforms" of the 1970s have made the old infrastructure inoperable - the reality of the legal mechanics, ability to control Party infrastructure and Brand was destroyed via naive reforms based on sloganeering "more democracy"
I can remember all that. It happened after the disastrous 1968 Democratic National Convention. I agree, it really didn't work well to replace the professional pols with cheering amateurs.
Her problem was that was a lying, incompetent drunk who went from "joy" to "Trump is a fascist."
The fascist stuff was kind of a buzzkill -----
I expect it was all focus grouped to death. Probably nothing else actually helped and didn't hurt vote count in another segment.
There was actually a lot of meat in her platform, but it is hard to deliver substantial material in the face of a Gish gallop, and a press corp that only wanted to cover the horse race.
The Democratic Party installed Harris out of fear. Had they tossed her, they'd have had to replace her with a white man. If they'd done that, they'd have lost by at least 10 points, and they knew it.
I don't think that works. Trump was white, and he won; Biden was a white man, and he won the election before. That Harris was the Token VP was known to all and is now a practice dead out of fashion, so I can't see how going on with the usual practice for centuries and running white men is likely to doom a party.
There is no single real thing that is The Democratic Party.
There are 50 odd States each with their own rule set, and 50odd Party orgs at the State level plus innumerable Groups
It is a fundamental error that people have that (a) there is One Thing that is actually a deciding thing for either of the the Dem or Rep ("wonderful" fruit of the Progressives "reforms" of the 70s), (b) there is One Thing that is the deciding route for elections in the United States when in fact there is 50, (c) that despite our illusion of national elections, it's really 50 things.
Given the mechanical-legal-logistical the collective defaulting at the very late date of the multiple party branded actors made sense.
And the idea simply subbing in a White Guy would have seen a total flip around is nonsense. Unless said White Guy was totally read to bag on Biden and rupture from past (harldy a foregone conclusion just on doing inversion of Identity Politics) the result almost certainly would have been the same.
The fundamental problem was not the fictional "They"' had a "Knew it" but that the urbane urban college educated Professional Class dominant inside of Democratic party groups were (and to extent remain) heavily all in on vie / lens that causes them fundamental blindness to how out of touch they are from the votes they need to win over, particularly outside of the Urbane Urban / Suburban zones. The whole reversion post Summer to "Democracy In Danger" (sure yes, but not a goddamn successful pitch to win over new votes, you already had everyone concerned by that on-board) and Biden-campaign pref on messaging reflects that.
If a They actually had a "Knew It" the problem would be fundamentally easier - the problem is harder to solve.
the fictio, the mirage of a They is also part of the problem, Americans just don't grok that under a façade of a unified system there's actually a weird-ass frankenstein 18th-19th century with some 20th century centralisation patchwork on electoral
I totally agree…better voter turnout and a few slightly more attuned voters and we are not living this nightmare. Can the circular firing please stop so we can listen for the really dangerous incoming barrage?
More voter turnout by all statistical information is more Net Votes for Trump
The Democrats delusion of More Voter Turnout helps them has not been true for about 10 years now.
Yeah because Biden dropped out too late, I believe the postmortem should point that out.
I think admitting Biden was senile and invalid, and reassessing whether Kamala was a good strategic call, are not the same kind of admitting the "L". I mean throw Biden under the bus. One Kamala problem is that she was in the coverup and she got caught, as were Pelosi and Schumer. To Americans they're just the people propping up Biden so they could be in charge, before swapping in Kamala when they got caught.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kax8cry6lro
There are millions of senile people whose families would love to get their hands on whatever Biden was taking that enabled that sort of conversation.
well if he didn't finally beat medicare, maybe they could.
seriously this is a delulu-tier defense. it's funny enough that I'll reply a while but it's really sad that our party thinks "he's not that senile" and "this election is about democracy" were not self-defeating messages.
Senility and dementia are medical issues.
Perhaps you have been lucky and not had a relative or friend to watch go through it.
Saying Biden was too old is reasonable. Claiming you know his medical diagnosis is just silly.
Anyone who saw the debate knew that Biden was not merely too old. I don't care what his diagnosis was; he was no longer capable of expressing his views coherently. That being the case, he was no longer capable of defeating Trump. I watched both my parents go through dementia; I know there was something seriously wrong with Biden.
So... when your parents were on their decline did they have flashes of extreme lucidity where they could do something like that NATO press conference?
I'm guessing they didn't.
Biden was too old to be president and campaign for president. He may have been just too old to be president, but the country was doing pretty well.
senile, addled, feeble-minded, losing it, gone soft in the head, not all there, lost his marbles, dotty, muddled, decrepit, enfeebled, in one's dotage, second childhood, mental decay, loss of faculties, cognitive collapse, losing one's mind, atrophying, mental deterioration, brain decay, mental disintegration, dementia, cognitive decline, neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, cerebral atrophy
which of these words are not gatekept by DSM-5, and you grant normal people permission to use, when discussing how Biden was unfit for office no later than June 2024?
Watch the video and get back to us.
Kamala would have been a fine President. Sadly that wasn't the criteria for a majority of the voters in the Electoral College.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think it's entirely possible that Kamala could have been a good President. But she was undeniably a terrible Presidential candidate and that's critical to getting the job.
She did better than the vast majority of losing presidential candidates.
Unless you are saying losing presidential candidates are by definition terrible, which is a pretty weak semantic point.
Sucks being the 1st place loser, doesn't it?
Congrats to Kamala on being a better than average loser.
Yup - which is pretty impressive for a Black woman during a global anti-incumbent swing on a short election cycle.
There aren't a lot of successful VP's running for an immediate promotion to the Oval office.
Yes, well done Kamala. She should run again.
The election was like a football game where the Blue Team was down by 18 points at the 2-minute warning. The coach benched the starting quarterback and put in the backup QB. To most everyone's surprise the backup QB rallied the Blue Team and scored two touchdowns. But still down by 4 as the clock expires the backup QB throws a Hail Mary pass into the end zone. But alas, it falls harmlessly incomplete. Red Team wins. Afterward many sportswriters blame the backup QB for the loss.
Agreed. The qualities of being a good President and the qualities of being a good candidate aren’t the same. Harris was a bad candidate in 2020. That didn’t mean that she couldn’t learn from past errors and become a better candidate in 2024. In fact, I thought the first month of her campaign was run pretty well (though that was always going to be the easiest part). The selection of Walz as her running mate was the first sign to me that she was falling back on old bad habits and then things just got worse from there (and she was punished for being worse by the steadily declining approval numbers).
Would another D candidate have performed better? Certainly could have, IMO, but that supposes a universe where Biden withdraws earlier there was a standard primary process and that better D candidate emerged under those conditions. Trump was not that a strong candidate; although he was probably going to beat a “generic D” candidate, IMO he would have lost to any “plus” D candidate. We’ll never know if such a candidate would have emerged from a 2024 primary field, because there wasn’t one. The timing of Biden’s withdrawal made it impossible to have one. Had the D establishment fallen behind someone other than the sitting Vice President, it would have ruptured the party and made it impossible for that other person to be successful.
At this point, though, I think we know all we need to know about KH the presidential candidate. She’s unelectable. I don’t think that the D party will be very excited about nominating her again, but she has the name recognition and network to be a very competitive candidate in the D primaries.
She'd have been great for the wine business and the vodka distillers, anyway. LOL
Eh - this seems to completely ignore the logistics of setting up some mini comp - where there is not one single national machinery legally nor operationally. Even assuming everyone jumps on board (which wasn't going to happen given Biden hard-core didn't want to let go) getting a full mechanic in place would have burned mega time and without doubt fed a Democrats in Disarray narrative.
By the time Biden withdrew things were fucked in various hard-coded logistical ways.
A bet on Harris was the reasonable bet to make at that late date. Earlier the arguments were different, but hard-logistics of 50 odd operations each one under different State laws, divergences - everyone hand waiving away seems to think there is some kind of central mechanism that could make things work.
This of course goes back to more blame on Biden for fucking things up from A to Z.
(and then Harris for not being a risk-taker as she had to be - and not dumping the Biden Bunglers)
Searched for a good comment to add to / no avail. Ergo adding here. Would love to start a convo about decision making. Not about right or wrong, cause nothing is ever that clear. Guilty...I went full tilt (live in CLT). How do we build the magnetic center to slow and shrink the pendulum swing?
I disagree. By the time Biden withdrew from the campaign, the Democratic party became boxed into Kamala Harris being the only feasible candidate. There wasn’t enough time to have a primary, so it was going to be the pick of the “smoke-filled room,” so to speak. If the sitting vice president - who happened to a woman of color - was somehow NOT going to get this nod, it would have ruptured the party and given whomever they did pick no chance.
No, KH is/was *not* a good presidential candidate, don’t get me wrong. However, unless she was to comprehend that truth and voluntarily pull herself from contention (something that seemed unlikely at the time, and appears less likely now, considering that all signs point to her obliviously gearing up to run *again*, despite the self-inflicted disaster of 2024), the Democratic party had no other option. Calling it a “bad decision” is to ignore the reality of party politics - with that amount of time left, it was the only decision.
Well, they all stick their hat on a pole and poke it hopefully out there a time or two --- Pence did, and even Dan Quayle, and they are both plainly unsuitable; Kamala will no doubt do the same, because apparently people really, really want to be president. But she's impossible and won't run again, IMO. To me the worst thing was that no one would work with her; her staff was in a revolving door. That's a REAL bad sign for a politician.
What makes you think Democrats would have done as well with another candidate? Not running Biden/Harris would have been viewed as an admission by Democrats that they failed in meeting their 2020 promises. Which swing voters would have punished them for, most probably resulting in a larger popular vote victory and more GOP seats in the House.
Obama, Nancy, Schumer, the NYT! Out of sync and well past their prime and relevance.
Okay, "the democrats" and Mr. Silver need to let Biden go. I mean, Mr. Silver, you did not need to write this very long post about Biden at this point in time despite talking about it at Thanksgiving. As you say, you previously wrote a lot, perhaps too much? about your theories on why the democrats lost, but we should all agree to stop rehashing Biden's stepdown. Let Joe rest. Happy Holidays.
This column isn't about Biden. It's people who won't admit they were wrong, and how it might affect Dems chances in the future.
Trump is trying to make Biden a wedge issue, which is right up the R's wheelhouse.
By all means, don't talk about the state of the country, economy, international relations, scientific progress, healthcare, etc.
Let's focus the idiocracy on something unrelated to actual matters of government.
The whole metaphor of "taking the L" is brain dead.
But the echo chamber has to echo. Drum up a few more golden oldies.
"They are eating cats and dogs" still has some time before its best by date has passed.
Haitians do eat cats, but not dogs. Look up Reveyon. Oh, but wait: "You can never tell a 'progressive' a single god damn thing ... " LOL
Thank you for proving me right.
Right back at ya! LOL
By the way, 3 billion people live in places where cats and/or dogs are part of the menu. What makes you such a racist xenophobe, anyway?
As I said : Let's focus the idiocracy on something unrelated to actual matters of government.
You are doing your part to prove me right.
Hard disagree. It is essential that the democrats not repeat this bullshit, and the best way to prevent it is to remind them that the leadership is not to be trusted.
Right - the Dems should pick someone to lead the Dems who isn't a leader.
That will work out great.
The Dems will pick Newsom. Everything else is window dressing.
I don't know, looks like that Kentucky governor is having a moment.
I'm sure he'll get a favorable op-ed in some Democratic media.
Well Newsom is mainly window dressing, so I suppose that makes it universal.
(I think he would be an OK president, but I'm skeptical the D's will go that way).
There isn't much criticism of Joe himself in this article. I'm happy to let Joe rest, he had a long career of public service and deserves it.
But the pundits and other members of the political class who were enablers of the enormously costly mistake that was Joe's reelection attempt still need to be called to task. As pointed out in this article, many are still actively refusing to admit any errors. Surely the first step on the path to doing better next time is either cutting such people out of decision making, or forcing them to face and admit their mistakes.
So I think the only expiration date on such criticism is the day they change their tune, or else are so completely marginalized as to be politically irrelevant.
I still think Biden defenders are weighing the party down. They're trying to sell this vision of democracy where voters don't have a right to see the president, or a right to a president who's capable of holding office, or a right to know who's in the inner circle actually making decisions. And we're supposed to be the ones complaining about democratic erosion. You really should try steelmanning the case Biden attempted coup and ask what it looks like to an American with the totally reasonable expectation that they vote for the person who runs the country, while seeing with their own eyes that that's not what was happening.
Your comment would be credible if you'd told CJ the San Franciscan to let Reagan go. LOL
Hard disagree. This post isn't really about Biden, but rather about certain people in the left-wing progressive media who deluded themselves into dismissing clear and obvious problems about Biden, and powerful background operatives in democratic politics like Tanden who unfortunately still have jobs despite the monumental fuckups. Expecting people to acknowledge their fuckups and grow should be the bare minimum for having a job in the media. And if you believe that democracy was/is on the line, having people like Tanden still working in democratic politics despite their role in this monumental fuckup and refusal to admit any wrongdoing/grow is completely unacceptable.
Can't agree with that ---- it's very important IMO for people never, never to grovel and apologize. As Disraeli said: "Never apologize, never explain."
Anyone who is fool enough to apologize is just inviting their enemies to destroy them. It's giving permission. Why give these awful people in the public permission to destroy you? Bad move. Say it loud and then never take it back. Important life rule.
If Biden People would disappear sure, but Nate is spot on. This isn't a family damn group, it's hard politics against Trump.
I don't think any individual Democratic candidate for high office needs to go out of their way to self-flagellate about this, but if asked "Was it a mistake for Biden to run for President at the age of 82?" it should be an easy layup to say "Yes." Winning elections needs to be in the front seat and protecting Biden's ego shouldn't even be in the car.
The big thing people seem to be forgetting is IMO a good observation by the Dem pols ----- he was PRESIDENT. Biden may have had his, ahem, off nights, but he knew he wanted to run and he's PRESIDENT: he gets to say!! That's just how it works. Same deal with "too late." Of course it was too late, but Joe wanted to continue to be president, to run himself, and because he was president, he did get to decide.
Late, as it turned out. But to do anything about that would have been a coup d'etat, and that is a legal no-no (it came pretty close anyway, I suspect!).
I believe that Jill, Hunter and Biden's advisers were "fluffers"! People who wanted to keep Joe's ego up. They were the "yes" team and encouraged Biden. Biden had become even more arrogant, blind, and deaf when he announced his decision to run in April 2023, while polling showed him in terrible shape. Biden had little charisma and was a lifelong politician. He closeted himself with his yes team. He owns the key reason that Lying King Donald and his MAGA shills control Congress.
We need to recognize Biden's failures in personality, judgment and policies. Biden's team failed miserably in the Afghanistan exit, inflation, immigration, Israel/Gaza, DEI, and identity politics. His policies, encouraged by some progressives, are vote killers! His progressive supporters don't accept that "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Democrats need to move towards (semi) open primaries to enable unaffiliated voters to enter the Democratic tent, and ranked choice voting. The current system of electing state and federal legislators, inherited from the UK, is archaic, undemocratic and loses elections!
I like your point about the "fluffers." You're probably right.
Hey, no individual Democratic candidate for high office should ever be anything other than arrogant, smug, and idiotic, while saying that about his opponent. LOL
Got to “excerpts of RFK Jr.’s erotic poetry” and blacked out
I think folks like Tanden and Rupar really annoys me bc they are like poster children of those who are pathologically unable to acknowledge mistakes in any circumstance - like you prob get social media clout that way but I think it is really detrimental to all of us…
The Democrats’ coverup of Biden’s frailties, while clearly an abomination, was NOT the scandal of the 2024 election. The epic fail was ignoring the majorities of their OWN VOTERS who wanted a different nominee. How does a party think it’s ok - politically, strategically, or morally - to just straight up middle finger their constituents? Dean Phillips HANDED THEM ON A SILVER FUCKING PLATTER the option of running a legit primary, but instead of backing the moderate 50-something businessman who’d flipped a red district blue, they threw Phillips under the bus and stuck with their 38% approval rated 81 year old. It was not as though Phillips had to become the eventual nominee; all it would have taken was a few Sens and Reps to publicly go to NH and say, “huh, who’s this Phillips guy, Democrats, America, let’s see what he has to offer.” No skin off anyone’s nose, and that’s all it would have taken to blow up the primary, maybe get some debates booked, and get Biden the fuck out of the race in January instead of July.
And for those saying this issue is irrelevant: take a look at the leaderboard of potential Dem nominees - Newsome, Pritzker, Whitmer (maybe less so now), even AOC - they ALL went out there like a bunch of idiot bobbleheads and told the American people, “Joe Biden! He’s our man!” If you’ve DEMONSTRATED that you think it’s ok to ignore your voters when selecting our presidential nominee - while at the same time telling us that the opposition are fascists - frankly, you’re too dumb to run the country. And if these people think that their decisions won’t come back to bite them in the ass at, let’s say, a Democratic primary debate - well, to quote Vincent Vega, excuse the past tense, but they shoulda fucking better known better.
Yup - as I said, the R's are making Biden a wedge issue.
The R's and Progressives are pushing a guilt by association effort to discredit everyone who didn't trash Biden.
It is the R's only real chance to preempt being attacked for their lack of interest in defending the rule of law from Trump.
As usual, the Progressives are along for the ride to carry the R's water.
Hi CJ. If that’s true, the progressives have no leg to stand on - Bernie was writing editorials to the NYT supporting Biden’s candidacy AFTER the debate.
And the Rs would be smart to make this a wedge, bc it truly was colossally poor decision-making. If I’m Beshear or Shapiro, who maybe didn’t stand up to Biden but certainly weren’t there like Newsom clapping him on the back - I’d sure as shit bring this up. That’s why the Dems would be smart to collectively own it NOW and neutralize it as best they can.
Bernie is a figurehead.
Other than that, we are on the same page - there is a reason Trump blames Biden for everything that has happened in the last 12 years.
Fair. But who are the progressives who are pushing this as an issue? Asking genuinely. AOC can’t really do it - she was Ridin with Biden the whole time.
The Progs in SF are pretty vocal about blaming Democratic party leadership for Biden and then the Harris loss.
Pretty noisy in the run up to Pelosi announcing she was done.
It is a 'vote them all out' push.
I don't know that it is a position for high profile Progs at this instance, but I expect it will come out if primaries are close.
Ironic, bc at least Pelosi was more than anyone pushing on Biden to drop out after the debate. Not that I wanted her to run again - she did the right thing by retiring.
Essentially the entire party fucked up in 2024. But they could parlay this into a talking point - “we as a party have failed to listen to the voters. We understand that now, better than ever, and we are committed to showing voters that we ARE listening by“ blah blah blah insert bold, creative and meaningful idea(s) here.
Correction: "Bernie's staff was writing editorials ... " LOL
IRON LAW: "You can always tell a 'progressive' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single god damn thing. Why? Because they are smarter and better than everyone else." And they're the political equivalent of vegans (wait, a lot of them ARE vegans): They always let you know it. The corollary is just as true: No 'progressive' will EVER admit that they were wrong, let alone arrogant, smug, and a lot dumber than they make themselves out to be.
So it went with Senile Joe Biden, who was senile even before he took office in '21. The word is "Parkinsonism," and anyone having experience with Parkinson's patients or relatives saw it right away. To this day, they go claws-out at anyone who states the obvious, which brings up another IRON LAW: No one is as vicious as a "progressive," other than Donald Trump when he's pissed off.
Now on to other things.
1. Yes, Nuzzi is a media whore. No shortage of them, especially on the "progressive" side, but certainly not only there.
2. "On background" and "off the record" is media whoring without the squirt, but whoring nonetheless. Probably worse, because that sort of whoring trades trust for the illusion of access. One thing I do like about Archie Bunker Trump, the Rodeo Clown from Queens is that he does not appear to play that game. Maybe that's partly why the whores at CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, NYT, et. al. et. al. hate him so much. No cozying up.
3. "The mainstream media probably does lean left." Oh, Nate, you master of understatement!
4. "The media often went too far in normalizing Trump." I suppose, but Nate, you forgot to mention who started that. It was none other than Joe 'n Mika of MSNBC, who gave blowj ... I mean conducted fawning "interviews" like crazy in the spring of '16. Why? My guess, and that's all it is, is that those whores were acting on sotto voce orders from Camp Hillary to the effect that they thought Trump would be easy to beat. See my very first point up top about "progressives" being a lot dumber than they make themselves out to be.
5. "The Big Cope" is just another way of saying that a "progressive" will NEVER admit error, and will go claws-out at anyone who happens to tell them how obviously and egregiously wrong they were. See, if they accept that, then they might have to entertain the idea that they just might not be better and smarter than everyone else. And that is something up with they shall not put.
6. I'd never heard of Neeran Tanden until 10 minutes ago. She sounds like a real piece of work, but there are so many on the left, not to mention the right. Ha!
7. "Democrats should hold themselves to a higher standard than MAGA." A little late for that, given the "progressive" cheering for the assassination of Charlie Kirk and their rush to pin the attack on those two guardsmen on Trump for ordering the deployment in Washington, D.C. -- all while not saying squat about the New York governor's deployment of the Guard to NYC's subways. Face it, if the "progressives" don't actually hate the military and this country, they have been doing an Oscar-level imitation of it.
8. "In this house we believe ..." My favorite part of those signs is that they include science, while turning around and trying to tell us that a man can become a woman by taking hormones and getting cosmetic surgery. Holy seventh grade biology Batman, how laughable, stupid, and hypocritical can these "smarter" ones be?
9. I forget. I must be going senile. What's Biden's phone number so we can compare notes?
Some guy needs a job.
Knock off the filthy language, whad'dya say?
I read very little of this. It feels backward-looking to a unique situation which is unlikely to recur and gives off a redolence of obsession and private feuding. Nate, I'll continue to subscribe for the poll averages, but this is not for me valuable political commentary.
This is why I love Nate. I am really not interested in intermediate approval ratings or advanced NBA soccer metrics. I have BS insights into the industry I have worked in...don't have the same in the industries I haven't (such as political journalism). Don't care if it is "true." None of it is. Love the take. Word brother.
Pew validated voters polls show Harris matching Biden among white voters.
She lost because Trump gained minority voters (plus or minus polling variability).
I think that is a strong reason that she would have done better if she had more time to campaign, although the Progressives who were determined to tie her to Netanyahu's Gaza mess may never have come around in the numbers that Biden pulled.
As for "Taking the L", what 'L'? Biden's 4 years were better than Trump1 and will be better than Trump2 baring a miracle.
Biden may have only been "on" 6 hours per day, but he had skilled people in his team running their departments.
The Dems should take the 'L' when Reagan zealots finally admit that during Reagan's second term his chief policy advisors included Nancy and her astrologer.
I don't think you're right about Biden. Biden has a stutter so he had trouble putting words together. Stutters also come along with other scattered mistakes like walking the wrong way and stuff like that. It got worse as he got older as he was no longer quick enough mentally to hide it until it was an overwhelming disability. But, to me, he was all there mentally. I saw a lot of interviews and speeches and I didn't see anything that would indicate to me he didn't understand what was going on. He's reliably "one off" the mark when saying things, Zelensky as opposed to Putin. You can follow his thinking.
There are actually a lot of benefits to having an older President, especially when they are highly experienced like Biden. Maybe we should adjust our expectations of the President being just one type of person.
Regardless, he never was going to win just ignoring it and should have kept it to one term. But I really do think you're wrong about Biden. He just had a stutter and was no longer quick enough mentally to cover it, but his mind never slipped.
Exactly. And exhaustion and stress make these miscues more likely.
The other side of this is that small group conversations on clear topics make these kinds of misstatement much less likely, and easier to gloss over.
It is feasible to me that the people meeting him during his normal work hours saw Biden as being far more capable than the person who showed up at the debate.
Finally, the debate happened as early as it did because Biden's people pushed for it. If they thought it was going to go the way it did, it wouldn't have happened.
Ergo his advisors saw a different Biden in their day to day interactions with him.
Huh. That's a good point, I think: the advisors couldn't have thought this would happen. Who knows: maybe it WAS the cold medication!
It's true that Harris was not a successful Presidential candidate. There is no proof, however, that anyone else would have done better.
Also, criticism of her supposedly weak history as a candidate is simply not true. Prior to 2024, she ran in 6 elections and won them all: DA, DA, AG, AG, Sen, VP. Who had a better record?
She ran a historically bad campaign for President in 2016.
2020 not 2016
The substack web interface lets you edit your comments.
I readily admit I got it wrong on Biden. I was mad at myself for months for believing he was up to it, but I no longer care and think this whole argument you're having with Tanden and others is pointless. The problem of age was unique to Biden. It won't matter one bit going forward. I don't know who Democrats will nominate in 2028, but whatever their liabilities, age won't be one of them.
I agree that the deadenders still defending him shouldn't be employed again, but they aren't likely to work in another administration anyway. It's a tiny number of people who are all very online. Outside of the online world they don't matter.
But when did you "readily admit" it? If it took you until that debate, then you were lying to yourself all along.
https://coldpoliticaltakes.substack.com/p/democrats-need-a-new-nominee?utm_source=publication-search
Q.E.D.
I don't think the problem is at all unique to Biden, potentially: Trump, for instance, is almost his age and Dems never forget that. People are getting terrifically old now and living VERY long and I suspect this will come up again and again.
At some point we may have a Supreme Court with an average age over 100.
Probably only a few medical breakthroughs away.
I swear to God, if Hillary runs again, I'll finally vote for her. Fair is fair --- persistence ought to count for something.
Hi Nate,
I think you are getting a few things wrong with this piece.
For one, you seem to assume that in an alternate reality where Biden dropped out of the race and there was some a contested primary, that Democrats would have done as well as Harris did in the end. In today's era of voters punishing candidates and parties admitting mistakes, this alternate reality hedging would have been perceived as admitting that the Democrats and their 2020 ticket had failed. So, it's a stretch to think that Democrats could have done as well as Biden was doing pre-debate (consistently trailing for months by about 1.5%) or the same margin that Harris lost the general election.
Secondly, on March 7, 2024, Biden made GOP hecklers look silly when going back and forth during the State of the Union address. Biden had a history of sometimes speaking very clearly, sometimes stumbling badly for a while. A bad debate--really, a bad half hour of a debate--where he had trouble articulating his thoughts does not mean he was mentally incompetent. It did show that he was not up to a rigorous campaign. But campaigning and governing are two different things. We do not have evidence that he was generally not sharp. Nor evidence that he did not understand issues at a deep level. Nor that folks did and could not ask him for clarification when his speech was not crisp.
Thirdly, you identify the midterms as the point you think Biden's abilities to govern reached a tipping point. You cite his inability after then to pass legislation as evidence of mental inability. But recall that the GOP flipped the House in those midterms. In the first two years, most of Biden's legislative victories were done on pure party line votes. Reverse the congresses in which Democrats held the House, and the results would have also been reversed.
And finally, Democrats lost this election on issues: The economy; the migration issues, Covid 19 mandates and censorhip of opposition; perceived over regulation and overspending; and social issues. A slight majority of voters thought this was the wrong direction. These issues left swing voters thinking the Democrats were too far left. What candidate would have articulated a different, more moderate agenda and been able to win the nomination? This is a really a key point. The Democrats' problem is not acknowledging that Biden was too old; it's acknowledging that that didn't cost them the election. As a result, Democrats are not changing their issue positions, which sets MAGA up well for the 2028 Presidential election.
Nate: Stop urging us to accept the rightness of your ‘angle’ and wanting absolution on your reporting. Start reflecting: stop deflecting. Biden showed age; Trump shows narcissism, cruelty and dementia. Report accurately on both men. Then move on!!!
I don’t think he feels that he needs any absolution and that the reporting was fine. Weird take.
You seem angry, Barbara. Only 38 months to go.
There’s that!
He’s not gonna drop the subject, nor should he, while the same people who were leading the party back then continue to lead the party now. Nate could give a shit about Biden - he’s irrelevant. But Gavin Newsom? Who vocally backed Biden throughout the campaign and has yet to own it? Yeah, that’s a problem, esp if sheep Dem primary voters trot him out for the general in 2028.
A refusal to admit a mistake obvious in hindsight is discrediting. But the real villain in this story is Joe Biden who failed his duty to the country.
Also, a request: could you and others refer to Nuzzi and Lizza as "Olivia and Ryan?" The two double z's are confusing! Plus there's the singer Lizzo.
Sure seems like the country did OK during Biden's 4 years, so that is a pretty strange legacy to assign to a "villain".
If people are blaming Biden for Trump's second term, they really should be blaming the voters because that is how democracy works.
Oh yeah, that 24% inflation was fine when you're a rich, smug San Francisco Democrat making $200,000+ a year. For the rest, not so much.
Real wages were up under Biden.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/#full-report
Keep saying so, rich San Francisco "progressive." LOL
Math is hard. Let's go shopping.
Took me a moment --------- Barbie doll. [:-)
Distorted stats begin in 2019 when he wasn’t President. Start it in 2020 and let us know how it works out.
Tell you what - you made that up, you find some evidence to support it.
The "villain" argument is not that Biden was a terrible President. It's that he chose to run again when he was incapable of doing so successfully which doomed the party.
Walt Kelly : "We have met the enemy and he is us".
Harris was a fine candidate. The voters made their decision.
Blaming Biden is weak tea.
CJ: You're really personifying the "cope" problem Nate is talking about.
Harris was.a terrible Presidential candidate. She first showed that in 2019 by going from temporarily being a front runner to become the Democratic nominee (https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_us-politics_kamala-harris-surges-polls-after-first-democratic-debate/6171048.html) to not even making it to Iowa because her campaign imploded so badly.
And then she showed it again last year (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/2024-the-pre-mortem).
What makes someone a good Presidential CANDIDATE is the ability to get people to vote for them to be President. The fact that you believe Biden was a good President and had a good record to run on just strengthens the argument of those who believes he shouldn't have run again because he could no longer effectively communicate.
The Democrats could have won last year. Trump was a terrible President and a despicable figure, who has a strong base but who independents distrust. The fact that he still won is an incredible indictment of the leadership of the Democratic party from 2022-2024.
CJ, I agree with Gordon. And I remember that Biden pledged to be a one term president. Unfortunately for him, his legacy will be defined by going back on that pledge and giving us Trump 2.0.
Biden never said that he would be a one term president.
Some of his aids floated that rumor, but were not even willing to speak about it on the record.
The most Biden ever said was that he saw himself "as a transition candidate".
Apparently it's a lot of fun being pretzeldent. Joe went back on his promise to get to continue to be president, and Trump moved Heaven and earth to win again after a whole-term interruption.
There wasn't a lane for Harris in 2019, she saw that and made the right political call to get out early. And yes, her campaign had problems, in part because she had a very weak team east of the Rockies.
If she stays in the 2020 race she doesn't get the VP nod.
Since you have defined all losing candidates as terrible, your tautology of course applies to Harris.
Literally every sentence in this comment is wrong or shows a lack of judgement.
- There was certainly "a lane" for Harris in 2019. It's the reason that folks like me were early supporters of her candidacy at that time. Unfortunately, she was such a terrible campaigner that the more time she spent on the campaign trail, the less folks liked her. That was her problem, not the lack of "a lane."
- The fact that she had "weak team east of the Rockies" is not a defense; it's an indictment. A critical part of being an effective candidate is hiring (and motivating) a good team.
- If Harris is a better candidate and stays in the race in 2020 longer that doesn't prevent her from being selected as VP. There are tons of examples of nominees selecting the runner up in the primaries to be their VP. Biden essentially committed himself to selecting a Black woman. The only reason that anyone besides Harris was even considered is because she had been such a lousy campaigner that it had damaged her reputation.
- I haven't defined all losing candidates as terrible. I don't think Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Bob Dole, or Al Gore were bad candidates; they just ran against popular incumbents or strong opposition. And I don't even think Hillary was a bad candidate, although she did carry a lot of baggage that I think was her undoing.
Kamala was a bad candidate. Joe Biden in 2024 was a terrible candidate (and to be honest, he was only mediocre throughout his entire career).
Biden was a good President for most of his term, but that doesn't excuse his decision to conceal evidence of his mental decline near the end of his term until the debate made it painfully obvious to me and everyone else. Had he withdrawn earlier, the party could have had a democratic selection process that would have enabled Democratic voters to pick someone who had a better chance of winning than Harris. THAT is how democracy is supposed to work.
Biden could not possibly have decided to "conceal evidence of his mental decline" because we know for sure Biden did not think at any time that he had any mental decline! Apparently he still doesn't think so --- there was a story about that last week, IIRC.
I very much doubt that anyone with senility is able to recognize that.
Sure in some ideal world something different might have happened. Or maybe the same outcome happens, and the loss is even larger because Harris has to spend 4 months pretending to be a Progressive.
But in democracy, adults vote among the options on the ballot.