I think you make a great point about how wrongly assured people will be in 2025 that whatever happened was obvious. If Biden were to beat Trump then everyone will say, "See it's obvious the Democrats should have stuck with Biden. He beat Trump in 2020 and now has the advantage of incumbency!" If Trump beats Biden then people will say, "What were the Dems thinking? All the polls showed that voters thought Biden was too old, and the only reason he won in 2020 was because of the limited campaigning he had to do because of Covid."
There's going to be a lot of hindsight bias either way because there are good arguments for both sticking with and ditching Biden.
The idea that Biden would be under pressure to wholeheartedly endorse Harris... feels like conventional wisdom that hasn't really been thought through.
Sure, that expectation might exist—and I understand the implied message that's sent if Biden doesn't endorse his VP. But what are the actual stakes?
For Biden? The man is 80+. If this scenario even happens, it means he's never running for anything again. Is failing to endorse his VP some stain on his legacy? I can't see it. In the grand scheme of things, it feels like VERY small potatoes.
For Harris? I'd understand if she's miffed, and it would do her campaign no favors... but most signs suggest she's not the best candidate anyway. Why should we care if she's miffed?
For the Democratic Party? Again, Harris probably isn't the best candidate anyway. Why should the party even want that endorsement to happen?
From where I'm standing, this issue is nothing worse than... a bit awkward. It hardly seems to matter. To minimize the awkwardness (which seems in everyone's interest), it's best if Biden and Harris present a united front. Biden can say he's stepping aside because he wants nothing more than a truly open primary where the voters choose the best candidate—so he won't be making an endorsement. Harris can say she hasn't requested Biden's endorsement because she honors his stance that an open primary is best and wants to compete on a level playing field (which she's eager to do because she's proud of her record).
Sure, it's all spin—but who cares? I just can't see this as the major issue it's sometimes made out to be.
I think this significantly underestimates the reaction of the "woke" segment of the Democratic Party to the perceived insult of a President not endorsing his VP. It will almost certainly be case in a racial light.
I don't really see it. As far as I know, Harris isn't any special hero of the Woke Crowd. In fact, I think she made a few enemies there through her prosecutorial career. I know what you're thinking: These are race-essentialists who see her as an avatar for all Black/South Asian women! Any slight to Harris is a slight to all!!
I don't think it's quite that simple. Harris just doesn't inspire that kind of passionate tribal devotion. She's not popular, and everyone remembers her flop of a 2020 primary run. I just don't think Harris's honor and future election prospects are the hill anyone wants to die on, woke or not.
A lot of political writers have hypothesized that a civil war would erupt in the Democratic Party if Biden were to drop out and Harris didn't get the nod precisely because of her status as a black/mixed race woman. Given the insanity/hysteria on race among the leftmost fringe of the party I find that to be a plausible argument.
I'm not contradicting you, but I'd be very curious to know who you mean and to read those pieces if you can give me some examples. To be honest, it sounds more like what *Conservatives* think Progressives think.
Certainly Progressives care about race and representation in their candidates, and I'm sure a few are fanatical about it. But I think that effect is blunted by a few things:
1) We've HAD a Black president, and now a Black female VP. There's no longer the same sense of historical urgency about ending the long string of white males.
2. Trump. If there's something Dems care about more than race and identity, it's preventing the horror of a second Trump presidency. Dems who pushed a racially-correct but weak candidate who then loses to Trump... would not be popular in their party. In fact, I saw some real souring on "diverse" candidates after Hillary's loss. "Let's face it," some Dems said. "We live in a racist, sexist country, and if we want to win (which we must), white guys are sadly our best bet."
3. They've seen Harris in action. It's one thing to say, in the abstract, "It's time we had a Black female president!" But everyone's now witnessed three years of Harris on the national stage, and not that many are really enthused. Again, I just don't think she inspires enough confidence or devotion to cause a major fracture in the party.
But I really do want to know which writers you have in mind so I can read their case first hand.
Whether Biden endorses Harris or not in that scenario doesn't matter. Democratic primary voters will vote on electability as they see it. They may or may not make the best choice, but it won't be influenced by endorsements. But I agree with your conclusion that in the end, it will be nothing more than "a bit awkward."
Hm, I'm not sure. Incumbent presidents get a lot of deference from their parties. Normally that means that if the incumbent wants the nomination, he gets it, with no serious primary challenge. If Biden decides to step aside... I think that same deference might still come into play: If he endorses Harris, I think there'd be at least some pressure on other Dems to fall in line and support her, much as they would with an incumbent. I can see it having a chilling effect on which other Dems get into the race and which other endorsements/funding they receive (or don't receive). And that isn't JUST about deference to Biden—it's partly about the urge to rally around one candidate and not fracture the party. I tend to agree it wouldn't have much influence on voters directly. But I do think it could change the dynamic within the party.
My guess is that most elected Democrats will avoid the issue as much as they can and not do any endorsements - claim that they want to leave it to voters. That would deprive other candidates of endorsements. And who knows, maybe Harris will see the writing on the wall and not run.
Lol and Democrats will lose no matter who they run but you pathetic losers should run Biden so I don't have to listen to you clowns stating "Le Blumpf never beat Biden" for Trump's entire 2nd term
1) Use some of that subscription money to hire a freelance editor to review your copy. You had two faulty word choices in this one article that any editor would have caught. Spell check isn't enough.
2) Footnotes just don't work in email. Your articles are way too long to scroll all the way, find the footnote, and then scroll back up and find where you were reading. And by the time you get to the end, you have no idea what the footnotes are talking about. Find another way to handle parentheticals such as, for example, with parentheticals.
Seems like he corrected that one, but there are still two left. Hire me for cheap and I'll fix them right now! Love your work, Nate, and wish I got to meet you in Vegas during the WSOP. Alas.
Or just post each column a day early to paid subscribers, who will descend, vulture-like, to scour for any typos and vigorously argue about grammar, because: nerds. Actually, please don't take this approach (although for sure, a sizeable subset of your readers, possibly including me, wouldn't be able to resist and maybe even have some background as professional editors).
As an active Democrat (meaning that I work on campaigns, mostly local level), I would say with very high confidence that a primary challenge would have been bad news and not worked. And I would say that while Biden stepping aside has it's risks, I still think at this point in time it would be the better choice. Nate listed the challenges of getting a strong candidate out of a primary process, but ignored the risks for Biden in the campaign: mistatements, more sandbags, you get the idea. He has always been gaffe-prone, and for this campaign, every gaffe will be a sign of age. I think probably through 2023, it would still be better if he stepped aside. But the only person who can deny Biden the nomination is Biden. No sitting one term president has been denied since before the Civil War. It may be a small sample, but it is very consistent.
I am also less worried about the Harris issue. In a primary, Democrats will be laser focused on electability. They aren't going to worry about how some people feel about who endorses or votes for Harris. They nominated the old white guy in 2020, after all. And it was black voters in particular who did that. If black voters don't choose Harris, there won't be much wind for people to complain.
Biden can still win. I don't dismiss the risks, but lacking a health scare, a recession, or some black swan event, I think he will win. But he won't have any coattails for the Congressional races either if he wins just because he isn't Trump.
Haha sadly I think it's the kind of thing that could only be done retrospectively after a crisis caused by the problem. For example if Biden became dangerously senile but the Cabinet were split on whether to replace him with Harris, causing a crisis. In the wake of such an event there might be bipartisan consensus on never again allowing someone so old to become President.
“Why isn’t Biden getting more credit for the economy?” Because many of us remember that nearly everything was 30%-50% less expensive three years ago. Our income has not nearly kept pace, and most of us don't have millions of dollars in assets that gained 30%-50%.
Besides the issues already mentioned, it strikes me that there’s another major problem with Biden announcing he’s not running after all.
If he’s doing it on age/health grounds, the Republicans will say (with some justification), if you’re too old to do the job a year from now, aren’t you too old to do it *now*? He’d be under huge pressure to step down and let Harris take over the top job, and not just from the other side.
Biden would be in the difficult position of trying to argue ‘I’m fine now, but a year from now I won’t be’…
In that circumstance, maybe him stepping down as President would even be the best option from the Democrats’ point of view. At least it would give Harris some valuable executive experience!
If Biden does pull out, he will of course say it is for his family, as they always do. And in this case it would be partly true, since Hunter is bound to be harrased and followed for the entire campaign. Pulling out would take some pressure off him - to focus on his recovery, and his legal issues.
I think this is true only if Biden has a really severe, acute health crisis where he basically is unable to continue to work. If Biden's health doesn't change and he were to bow out in, say, three months, he could easily say, "I love doing the job and I look forward to serving the American people for one more year. With that said, the time has come for a new generation *OR* I know the power of fate and may not be as strong and healthy in 3 years, etc, etc. So I have decided to make way for our party's next leader blah blah blah." In this scenario Dems certainly would prefer a primary to coronating Kamala, and while the GOP might attack in the manner you describe, I imagine their focus would largely be on the field/eventually nominee as Biden is basically irrelevant in that scenario.
Why doesn't Biden take the obvious middle-ground approach of still running but replacing Harris? Her unpopularity makes Biden's age a much larger issue. If a more popular VP were waiting in the wings voters would have less concern about Biden becoming incapacitated. This approach avoids a messy and unpredictable primary that Biden is (justifiably) concerned about.
I'm not sure whether voters' concern is Biden becoming incapacitated. I think they don't like him -now-. Would like to have data to answer this question though.
But this (sort of) does it without all of the downsides Nate lists above: no 6-12mo spinup time for their campaign, get to cherry-pick the most capable (VP) candidate rather than stumbling into a Newsom nomination, no bruising primary -- the more I think about this idea the better it seems (though tbh the bank-shot of her unpopularity is surely less of a factor than his immediate age-related decline, as far as the problem of Biden being old goes)
Noam Chomsky said we are a one party system. The business party. It's completely true. One party will look to keep your personal rights though so it actually still does something. But as long as we have Presidents that say they will serve Americans and then only serve billionaires, America is doomed. We are swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless, Trump will be the end of Democracy. I will take an awful Biden over literally becoming an enemy of the state.
If Kennedy, Buchanan, et al had decided not to run, would Carter, GHWB, et al have won? Weak incumbents attract challengers. The challengers were not the causes of the losses; they were canaries in the coal mine.
Nate suggests that if had the Democrats agreed to find another candidate 6-12 months ago, they’d not only be better off vs finding a new candidate today (seems obvious) - but that they’d be more likely to beat Trump in 2024 vs running Biden again. I think there are all sorts of reasons to question this premise.
Like what about the incumbency advantage that Nate has written about on a number of occasions? By not going with Biden, they’d be throwing that away.
It’s also possible that Biden’s positives (moderation vs both left and right, association with Obama, policy accomplishments, etc.) offset concern with his age in the polls - that is, someone who is younger but “not Biden” would be doing worse. Do we even know how popular Gretchen Whitmer is nationally?
My sense is overall there are very few situations in which a party is better off when an eligible president doesn’t run again. If Nate started from that prior (maybe using non-term limited governorships or senate races as a proxy), I think he’d find out it’s best to ride out on the horse you came in on.
The incumbency won't be an advantage for Biden, since he's stuck with defending "Bidenomics," the border, Hunter, etc. Biden also has been governing far from a moderate position on many issues--see his administration's hardcore stance on gender identity as just one example. The only reason why Biden is seen as "moderate" is simply because of perception. People look at him and think they're seeing an old-school, 20th-century Democrat. But that isn't the approach he's actually taken on a wide range of issues.
Biden has historically poor campaign skills for a president. The skill set to win elections is very different from the skill set to govern. We can debate his set on the second (I think he is good there), but anybody who knows campaigns knows he is not a strong campaigner. He is good at the one-on-one interaction, but that doesn't count for much in a presidential election. This is partly why he gets no credit even from people who support his policies - he lacks the political skills to claim that credit.
2020 was a unique election - with a raging pandemic, anybody with a quarter of a brain wanted a candidate who did not hold super-spreader rallies and stayed at home. Some studies have shown COVID death spikes from Trump rallies. 2024 will be very different. This is also why Biden did so poorly in his previous attempts to run for president. 2020 was just uniquely set for him, but 2024 is not.
I think being tied with someone who led an attack on the capital with false claims of election fraud, and who faces 91 felony charges, is a sign of deep problems. And if that man's judges hadn't just revoked a constitutional right from half the population, the polls might be even less favorable. At this point I'm not even sure there ends up being a peaceful way out of this situation long term.
As long as you're so utterly convinced that you're right about everything and that your opponents are wrong about everything, there won't be a peaceful way out, long term. Reconciliation isn't possible without resolution, and part of the resolution, by nature, must involve the guilty party acknowledging its guilt. But you're so convinced that you're right that you don't even think you have any guilt, despite obvious, everyone-can-see-it proof on many issues where "your side" was clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably in the wrong.
I know that you'll respond to this post by deflecting, denying, and turning the attention to Trump and his "91 indictments" and all that. But you'll just be proving my point.
Before DeSantis entered the 2024 race I believed 2028 would be Whitmer vs DeSantis. I still believe Whitmer will be the 2028 Democratic nominee as now Democrats tend to be the voters that fall in line while GOP voters are hard to predict now in the age of Trump…2028 could be Don Jr and the Trump nonsense might never end!?!
I think clearly both parties would be better off nominating someone other than whom they're expected to nominate. Yet it's very very difficult to draw the scenario where that happens, for either party. Three thoughts:
Between now and next November external events will happen, and some of them may have some impact on the general election, (even though both candidates are universally known and opinions should be fairly hardened). Not knowing what those events will be introduces some uncertainty.
If it's Biden and Trump (likely), and both men remain as unpopular as they are now (likely), doesn't that make it quite likely some 'political outsider' runs a third party campaign that gets significant attention? There are plenty of ambitious rich guys in this country. And while lighting would have to strike for that person to win, it does seem like in that situation whichever of Biden or Trump is hurt more by this candidacy would be decisive.
Does either party, or its voters at least, really believe there's a next time? Republicans always run as if Democrats are going to end the world. But I think Democrats have more reason to actually believe that about the other side, considering January 6th, the attacks on elections, authoritarian instincts in other areas (such as the removal of women's bodily autonomy in half the country and aiming for the rest), Trump's plans to fire a large portion of the federal government (Schedule F) and his desire for vengeance against the entire system, combined with the fact that the party has almost never been able to resist him in eight years, the fact that Republicans (Tuberville) are holding all the military positions open waiting for Trump, the fact that any Republican president would have the trifecta while a Democrat would most likely not, etc. etc. etc. I wish there was a way to quantify the risk because I think it's all alarmingly unusual (and I have no interest in replies of 'lol, cry, lib'). I'm sure Republicans could paint a similar scenario. My point being, does that kind of desperation lead to atypical behavior by either or both parties or other actors?
Everyone always suggests that a big-name rich guy will run a strong third party campaign, and who knows, maybe this time it will happen. But 90% of the time it doesn’t. Most big-name rich guys are smart enough to see they have little to gain from a serious third-party presidential campaign, and little chance of winning from outside of the major parties. Not even Kanye West took it seriously.
Maybe someone like Elon Musk would be egotistical enough to do it; but he’s also smart enough to realise he’d just be taking votes from his preferred candidate (I’m presuming Trump) and helping the other guy to win…
Mike Bloomberg seriously looked at running as a third party candidate and hired pollsters and campaign strategists to think this through. He came to the conclusions that a) he had no chance, and b) his running would guarantee a Trump victory. This with far more assets (both financial and past political record) than your run of the mill billionaire. Thus, he chose the strategy to run as a Democrat only if Biden was knocked out in the two early primaries which appeared to happen.
You could make the argument that 2024 is different because Trump and Biden are far weaker than in 2020 but I doubt that will be sufficient to overcome the power of the two party system.
…oh yeah. I had actually forgotten about the whole ‘natural-born citizen’ thing…
Agreed though that the only viable approach for a billionaire is to do what Bloomberg tried to do (and Trump actually did successfully!) and win the nomination of one of the major parties.
I don't disagree with any of this reasoning. It just appears to me that there would be a very strong market demand for a third option, and where there's demand, someone usually steps in to supply. It wouldn't have to be a big-name rich guy; a heretofore unknown rich guy might fit the bill better.
I think you just have to witness the extraordinary lengths to which the Democrats are currently going--as in, right now, not some hypothetical scenario in the future--to show the desperation leading to atypical behavior that you're talking about.
And if there was such an ambitious rich guy out there, we would've heard about him already. Besides, RFK Jr. is already basically running a third-party candidacy, and Cornel West is, too.
I remain skeptical of the reality of other candidates. Yes, a large percentage want another choice. But some of them want Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, some want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and some want another Ross Perot. (Does anybody really want Joe Manchin?) They simply are not a coherent group that could coalesce around one candidate. And most rich guys who could self-fund would figure that out pretty quickly. In 2016, the idea that Clinton would win in a romp allowed people think it was a free protest vote. Nobody thinks that any more.
Forgot to mention that Ukraine could very well fall to Putin if a Republican wins (I am aware that people, somehow, disagree on whether this is a bad thing).
Most of the scenarios are based on the premise Biden decides to not run. More likely is a banana peel option with him being forced to withdraw, and perhaps VERY late in the game. A July surprise? Then what do the dems do? VP Harris? Michelle Obama? A cage match with 20 senators and governors?
That's my fear. For Biden to withdraw now results in a primary process. That has it's risks, but if he is forced to withdraw very late, we have a serious mess. If Biden has to withdraw after the convention, then the DNC will have to make the choice of a replacement, and at that point, it would be very difficult not to choose the VP, since she will in fact already have been chosen as VP.
RFK jr will attract voters for his anti-war campaign. The media feel not mentioning him except to slam him as a "conspiracy theorist" or "anti-vaxer" will negate his chances. The voters may feel differently.
It’s not something that can be proven 100%, but most of the studies about Perot voters showed second choices split pretty evenly between Bush and Clinton (with a healthy dose of people saying they wouldn’t have voted). I’m not aware of any study that says Perot took enough votes away from Bush that he would have won otherwise.
That is, people have a terrible view of the economy and he's *still* tied with Trump. If the economy continues to be good over the next year people's views will almost certainly improve and this will redound to Biden's benefit and he will have a much better chance of beating Trump.
If the economy turns sour, he will almost certainly lose to Trump, but if the economy is seen as bad, almost any Democratic replacement for Biden would lose as well.
I think you make a great point about how wrongly assured people will be in 2025 that whatever happened was obvious. If Biden were to beat Trump then everyone will say, "See it's obvious the Democrats should have stuck with Biden. He beat Trump in 2020 and now has the advantage of incumbency!" If Trump beats Biden then people will say, "What were the Dems thinking? All the polls showed that voters thought Biden was too old, and the only reason he won in 2020 was because of the limited campaigning he had to do because of Covid."
There's going to be a lot of hindsight bias either way because there are good arguments for both sticking with and ditching Biden.
If its a close election then sure. If biden gets steamrolled (very unlikely but possible), a lot of people will have egg on their face.
The idea that Biden would be under pressure to wholeheartedly endorse Harris... feels like conventional wisdom that hasn't really been thought through.
Sure, that expectation might exist—and I understand the implied message that's sent if Biden doesn't endorse his VP. But what are the actual stakes?
For Biden? The man is 80+. If this scenario even happens, it means he's never running for anything again. Is failing to endorse his VP some stain on his legacy? I can't see it. In the grand scheme of things, it feels like VERY small potatoes.
For Harris? I'd understand if she's miffed, and it would do her campaign no favors... but most signs suggest she's not the best candidate anyway. Why should we care if she's miffed?
For the Democratic Party? Again, Harris probably isn't the best candidate anyway. Why should the party even want that endorsement to happen?
From where I'm standing, this issue is nothing worse than... a bit awkward. It hardly seems to matter. To minimize the awkwardness (which seems in everyone's interest), it's best if Biden and Harris present a united front. Biden can say he's stepping aside because he wants nothing more than a truly open primary where the voters choose the best candidate—so he won't be making an endorsement. Harris can say she hasn't requested Biden's endorsement because she honors his stance that an open primary is best and wants to compete on a level playing field (which she's eager to do because she's proud of her record).
Sure, it's all spin—but who cares? I just can't see this as the major issue it's sometimes made out to be.
I think this significantly underestimates the reaction of the "woke" segment of the Democratic Party to the perceived insult of a President not endorsing his VP. It will almost certainly be case in a racial light.
I don't really see it. As far as I know, Harris isn't any special hero of the Woke Crowd. In fact, I think she made a few enemies there through her prosecutorial career. I know what you're thinking: These are race-essentialists who see her as an avatar for all Black/South Asian women! Any slight to Harris is a slight to all!!
I don't think it's quite that simple. Harris just doesn't inspire that kind of passionate tribal devotion. She's not popular, and everyone remembers her flop of a 2020 primary run. I just don't think Harris's honor and future election prospects are the hill anyone wants to die on, woke or not.
A lot of political writers have hypothesized that a civil war would erupt in the Democratic Party if Biden were to drop out and Harris didn't get the nod precisely because of her status as a black/mixed race woman. Given the insanity/hysteria on race among the leftmost fringe of the party I find that to be a plausible argument.
I'm not contradicting you, but I'd be very curious to know who you mean and to read those pieces if you can give me some examples. To be honest, it sounds more like what *Conservatives* think Progressives think.
Certainly Progressives care about race and representation in their candidates, and I'm sure a few are fanatical about it. But I think that effect is blunted by a few things:
1) We've HAD a Black president, and now a Black female VP. There's no longer the same sense of historical urgency about ending the long string of white males.
2. Trump. If there's something Dems care about more than race and identity, it's preventing the horror of a second Trump presidency. Dems who pushed a racially-correct but weak candidate who then loses to Trump... would not be popular in their party. In fact, I saw some real souring on "diverse" candidates after Hillary's loss. "Let's face it," some Dems said. "We live in a racist, sexist country, and if we want to win (which we must), white guys are sadly our best bet."
3. They've seen Harris in action. It's one thing to say, in the abstract, "It's time we had a Black female president!" But everyone's now witnessed three years of Harris on the national stage, and not that many are really enthused. Again, I just don't think she inspires enough confidence or devotion to cause a major fracture in the party.
But I really do want to know which writers you have in mind so I can read their case first hand.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna105027
The real question is "how will James Clyburn react the Harris not getting endorsed"
That said, is he really going to declare the Democratic party racist for not nominating her if it means a second Trump term?
I think the question is if he deploys the racism angle while the nomination is still up in the air in an effort to give it to Harris.
Totally agree
Whether Biden endorses Harris or not in that scenario doesn't matter. Democratic primary voters will vote on electability as they see it. They may or may not make the best choice, but it won't be influenced by endorsements. But I agree with your conclusion that in the end, it will be nothing more than "a bit awkward."
Hm, I'm not sure. Incumbent presidents get a lot of deference from their parties. Normally that means that if the incumbent wants the nomination, he gets it, with no serious primary challenge. If Biden decides to step aside... I think that same deference might still come into play: If he endorses Harris, I think there'd be at least some pressure on other Dems to fall in line and support her, much as they would with an incumbent. I can see it having a chilling effect on which other Dems get into the race and which other endorsements/funding they receive (or don't receive). And that isn't JUST about deference to Biden—it's partly about the urge to rally around one candidate and not fracture the party. I tend to agree it wouldn't have much influence on voters directly. But I do think it could change the dynamic within the party.
My guess is that most elected Democrats will avoid the issue as much as they can and not do any endorsements - claim that they want to leave it to voters. That would deprive other candidates of endorsements. And who knows, maybe Harris will see the writing on the wall and not run.
Lol and Democrats will lose no matter who they run but you pathetic losers should run Biden so I don't have to listen to you clowns stating "Le Blumpf never beat Biden" for Trump's entire 2nd term
You should find a Democrat to say that to. I don't qualify.
As for your trash-talk... everyone not permanently glued to a bar stool knows it doesn't actually cause the other team to lose.
Great article, loving your work. Two things:
1) Use some of that subscription money to hire a freelance editor to review your copy. You had two faulty word choices in this one article that any editor would have caught. Spell check isn't enough.
2) Footnotes just don't work in email. Your articles are way too long to scroll all the way, find the footnote, and then scroll back up and find where you were reading. And by the time you get to the end, you have no idea what the footnotes are talking about. Find another way to handle parentheticals such as, for example, with parentheticals.
1. Yes, this is important: mistakes like “waive a magic wand” are just embarrassing.
2. Like any journalist he wants you to click through to his site, where the footnotes work, so this seems less likely to happen.
Seems like he corrected that one, but there are still two left. Hire me for cheap and I'll fix them right now! Love your work, Nate, and wish I got to meet you in Vegas during the WSOP. Alas.
Or just post each column a day early to paid subscribers, who will descend, vulture-like, to scour for any typos and vigorously argue about grammar, because: nerds. Actually, please don't take this approach (although for sure, a sizeable subset of your readers, possibly including me, wouldn't be able to resist and maybe even have some background as professional editors).
On 2: In Nate's defense, it's more of an annoying Substack thing. The footnotes work really well on the m-site, but are broken on emails and the app.
They would have made it work properly on the app if there was a calculated intent to drive click-through. Probably just tech debt for Substack...
As an active Democrat (meaning that I work on campaigns, mostly local level), I would say with very high confidence that a primary challenge would have been bad news and not worked. And I would say that while Biden stepping aside has it's risks, I still think at this point in time it would be the better choice. Nate listed the challenges of getting a strong candidate out of a primary process, but ignored the risks for Biden in the campaign: mistatements, more sandbags, you get the idea. He has always been gaffe-prone, and for this campaign, every gaffe will be a sign of age. I think probably through 2023, it would still be better if he stepped aside. But the only person who can deny Biden the nomination is Biden. No sitting one term president has been denied since before the Civil War. It may be a small sample, but it is very consistent.
I am also less worried about the Harris issue. In a primary, Democrats will be laser focused on electability. They aren't going to worry about how some people feel about who endorses or votes for Harris. They nominated the old white guy in 2020, after all. And it was black voters in particular who did that. If black voters don't choose Harris, there won't be much wind for people to complain.
Biden can still win. I don't dismiss the risks, but lacking a health scare, a recession, or some black swan event, I think he will win. But he won't have any coattails for the Congressional races either if he wins just because he isn't Trump.
The US should pair its lower age limit of 35 with an upper age limit of 65. If you're old enough to retire, you're too old to be commander in chief.
Oh hell yes, emergency bipartisan constitutional amendment.
Haha sadly I think it's the kind of thing that could only be done retrospectively after a crisis caused by the problem. For example if Biden became dangerously senile but the Cabinet were split on whether to replace him with Harris, causing a crisis. In the wake of such an event there might be bipartisan consensus on never again allowing someone so old to become President.
“Why isn’t Biden getting more credit for the economy?” Because many of us remember that nearly everything was 30%-50% less expensive three years ago. Our income has not nearly kept pace, and most of us don't have millions of dollars in assets that gained 30%-50%.
Besides the issues already mentioned, it strikes me that there’s another major problem with Biden announcing he’s not running after all.
If he’s doing it on age/health grounds, the Republicans will say (with some justification), if you’re too old to do the job a year from now, aren’t you too old to do it *now*? He’d be under huge pressure to step down and let Harris take over the top job, and not just from the other side.
Biden would be in the difficult position of trying to argue ‘I’m fine now, but a year from now I won’t be’…
In that circumstance, maybe him stepping down as President would even be the best option from the Democrats’ point of view. At least it would give Harris some valuable executive experience!
If Biden does pull out, he will of course say it is for his family, as they always do. And in this case it would be partly true, since Hunter is bound to be harrased and followed for the entire campaign. Pulling out would take some pressure off him - to focus on his recovery, and his legal issues.
I think this is true only if Biden has a really severe, acute health crisis where he basically is unable to continue to work. If Biden's health doesn't change and he were to bow out in, say, three months, he could easily say, "I love doing the job and I look forward to serving the American people for one more year. With that said, the time has come for a new generation *OR* I know the power of fate and may not be as strong and healthy in 3 years, etc, etc. So I have decided to make way for our party's next leader blah blah blah." In this scenario Dems certainly would prefer a primary to coronating Kamala, and while the GOP might attack in the manner you describe, I imagine their focus would largely be on the field/eventually nominee as Biden is basically irrelevant in that scenario.
Good point.
Why doesn't Biden take the obvious middle-ground approach of still running but replacing Harris? Her unpopularity makes Biden's age a much larger issue. If a more popular VP were waiting in the wings voters would have less concern about Biden becoming incapacitated. This approach avoids a messy and unpredictable primary that Biden is (justifiably) concerned about.
I'm not sure whether voters' concern is Biden becoming incapacitated. I think they don't like him -now-. Would like to have data to answer this question though.
Also if they had someone to be a more popular VP they'd have someone to replace Biden with now too.
But this (sort of) does it without all of the downsides Nate lists above: no 6-12mo spinup time for their campaign, get to cherry-pick the most capable (VP) candidate rather than stumbling into a Newsom nomination, no bruising primary -- the more I think about this idea the better it seems (though tbh the bank-shot of her unpopularity is surely less of a factor than his immediate age-related decline, as far as the problem of Biden being old goes)
Noam Chomsky said we are a one party system. The business party. It's completely true. One party will look to keep your personal rights though so it actually still does something. But as long as we have Presidents that say they will serve Americans and then only serve billionaires, America is doomed. We are swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless, Trump will be the end of Democracy. I will take an awful Biden over literally becoming an enemy of the state.
If Kennedy, Buchanan, et al had decided not to run, would Carter, GHWB, et al have won? Weak incumbents attract challengers. The challengers were not the causes of the losses; they were canaries in the coal mine.
Nate suggests that if had the Democrats agreed to find another candidate 6-12 months ago, they’d not only be better off vs finding a new candidate today (seems obvious) - but that they’d be more likely to beat Trump in 2024 vs running Biden again. I think there are all sorts of reasons to question this premise.
Like what about the incumbency advantage that Nate has written about on a number of occasions? By not going with Biden, they’d be throwing that away.
It’s also possible that Biden’s positives (moderation vs both left and right, association with Obama, policy accomplishments, etc.) offset concern with his age in the polls - that is, someone who is younger but “not Biden” would be doing worse. Do we even know how popular Gretchen Whitmer is nationally?
My sense is overall there are very few situations in which a party is better off when an eligible president doesn’t run again. If Nate started from that prior (maybe using non-term limited governorships or senate races as a proxy), I think he’d find out it’s best to ride out on the horse you came in on.
The incumbency won't be an advantage for Biden, since he's stuck with defending "Bidenomics," the border, Hunter, etc. Biden also has been governing far from a moderate position on many issues--see his administration's hardcore stance on gender identity as just one example. The only reason why Biden is seen as "moderate" is simply because of perception. People look at him and think they're seeing an old-school, 20th-century Democrat. But that isn't the approach he's actually taken on a wide range of issues.
Biden has historically poor campaign skills for a president. The skill set to win elections is very different from the skill set to govern. We can debate his set on the second (I think he is good there), but anybody who knows campaigns knows he is not a strong campaigner. He is good at the one-on-one interaction, but that doesn't count for much in a presidential election. This is partly why he gets no credit even from people who support his policies - he lacks the political skills to claim that credit.
2020 was a unique election - with a raging pandemic, anybody with a quarter of a brain wanted a candidate who did not hold super-spreader rallies and stayed at home. Some studies have shown COVID death spikes from Trump rallies. 2024 will be very different. This is also why Biden did so poorly in his previous attempts to run for president. 2020 was just uniquely set for him, but 2024 is not.
That's very possible, and scary if you're a Democrat - that someone else would be doing even worse.
Why is that scary? Biden isn’t doing badly - you’d basically expect him to be tied in the polls given underlying polarization.
And BTW Obama’s approval rating per Gallup was 38% in polls in August and October of 2011 - so Biden is even possibly doing better?
I think being tied with someone who led an attack on the capital with false claims of election fraud, and who faces 91 felony charges, is a sign of deep problems. And if that man's judges hadn't just revoked a constitutional right from half the population, the polls might be even less favorable. At this point I'm not even sure there ends up being a peaceful way out of this situation long term.
As long as you're so utterly convinced that you're right about everything and that your opponents are wrong about everything, there won't be a peaceful way out, long term. Reconciliation isn't possible without resolution, and part of the resolution, by nature, must involve the guilty party acknowledging its guilt. But you're so convinced that you're right that you don't even think you have any guilt, despite obvious, everyone-can-see-it proof on many issues where "your side" was clearly, demonstrably, irrefutably in the wrong.
I know that you'll respond to this post by deflecting, denying, and turning the attention to Trump and his "91 indictments" and all that. But you'll just be proving my point.
That’s a problem with our political system and the fracturing of the media and tribalism.
Before DeSantis entered the 2024 race I believed 2028 would be Whitmer vs DeSantis. I still believe Whitmer will be the 2028 Democratic nominee as now Democrats tend to be the voters that fall in line while GOP voters are hard to predict now in the age of Trump…2028 could be Don Jr and the Trump nonsense might never end!?!
Josh Shapiro would like a word…
It has to be a woman. Remember the NYTimes endorsement in 2020 of both Warren and Klobuchar?
I think clearly both parties would be better off nominating someone other than whom they're expected to nominate. Yet it's very very difficult to draw the scenario where that happens, for either party. Three thoughts:
Between now and next November external events will happen, and some of them may have some impact on the general election, (even though both candidates are universally known and opinions should be fairly hardened). Not knowing what those events will be introduces some uncertainty.
If it's Biden and Trump (likely), and both men remain as unpopular as they are now (likely), doesn't that make it quite likely some 'political outsider' runs a third party campaign that gets significant attention? There are plenty of ambitious rich guys in this country. And while lighting would have to strike for that person to win, it does seem like in that situation whichever of Biden or Trump is hurt more by this candidacy would be decisive.
Does either party, or its voters at least, really believe there's a next time? Republicans always run as if Democrats are going to end the world. But I think Democrats have more reason to actually believe that about the other side, considering January 6th, the attacks on elections, authoritarian instincts in other areas (such as the removal of women's bodily autonomy in half the country and aiming for the rest), Trump's plans to fire a large portion of the federal government (Schedule F) and his desire for vengeance against the entire system, combined with the fact that the party has almost never been able to resist him in eight years, the fact that Republicans (Tuberville) are holding all the military positions open waiting for Trump, the fact that any Republican president would have the trifecta while a Democrat would most likely not, etc. etc. etc. I wish there was a way to quantify the risk because I think it's all alarmingly unusual (and I have no interest in replies of 'lol, cry, lib'). I'm sure Republicans could paint a similar scenario. My point being, does that kind of desperation lead to atypical behavior by either or both parties or other actors?
Everyone always suggests that a big-name rich guy will run a strong third party campaign, and who knows, maybe this time it will happen. But 90% of the time it doesn’t. Most big-name rich guys are smart enough to see they have little to gain from a serious third-party presidential campaign, and little chance of winning from outside of the major parties. Not even Kanye West took it seriously.
Maybe someone like Elon Musk would be egotistical enough to do it; but he’s also smart enough to realise he’d just be taking votes from his preferred candidate (I’m presuming Trump) and helping the other guy to win…
Mike Bloomberg seriously looked at running as a third party candidate and hired pollsters and campaign strategists to think this through. He came to the conclusions that a) he had no chance, and b) his running would guarantee a Trump victory. This with far more assets (both financial and past political record) than your run of the mill billionaire. Thus, he chose the strategy to run as a Democrat only if Biden was knocked out in the two early primaries which appeared to happen.
You could make the argument that 2024 is different because Trump and Biden are far weaker than in 2020 but I doubt that will be sufficient to overcome the power of the two party system.
As for Elon, he's a naturalized citizen.
…oh yeah. I had actually forgotten about the whole ‘natural-born citizen’ thing…
Agreed though that the only viable approach for a billionaire is to do what Bloomberg tried to do (and Trump actually did successfully!) and win the nomination of one of the major parties.
I don't disagree with any of this reasoning. It just appears to me that there would be a very strong market demand for a third option, and where there's demand, someone usually steps in to supply. It wouldn't have to be a big-name rich guy; a heretofore unknown rich guy might fit the bill better.
Technically, a couple of people already have.
I think you just have to witness the extraordinary lengths to which the Democrats are currently going--as in, right now, not some hypothetical scenario in the future--to show the desperation leading to atypical behavior that you're talking about.
And if there was such an ambitious rich guy out there, we would've heard about him already. Besides, RFK Jr. is already basically running a third-party candidacy, and Cornel West is, too.
I remain skeptical of the reality of other candidates. Yes, a large percentage want another choice. But some of them want Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, some want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and some want another Ross Perot. (Does anybody really want Joe Manchin?) They simply are not a coherent group that could coalesce around one candidate. And most rich guys who could self-fund would figure that out pretty quickly. In 2016, the idea that Clinton would win in a romp allowed people think it was a free protest vote. Nobody thinks that any more.
Forgot to mention that Ukraine could very well fall to Putin if a Republican wins (I am aware that people, somehow, disagree on whether this is a bad thing).
Most of the scenarios are based on the premise Biden decides to not run. More likely is a banana peel option with him being forced to withdraw, and perhaps VERY late in the game. A July surprise? Then what do the dems do? VP Harris? Michelle Obama? A cage match with 20 senators and governors?
That's my fear. For Biden to withdraw now results in a primary process. That has it's risks, but if he is forced to withdraw very late, we have a serious mess. If Biden has to withdraw after the convention, then the DNC will have to make the choice of a replacement, and at that point, it would be very difficult not to choose the VP, since she will in fact already have been chosen as VP.
RFK jr will attract voters for his anti-war campaign. The media feel not mentioning him except to slam him as a "conspiracy theorist" or "anti-vaxer" will negate his chances. The voters may feel differently.
I thought Perot took some of H W Bush votes
felt crazy not seeing the guy who got 18% of the vote mentioned
Perot had almost 19% / 20m votes. No Perot, no Clinton.
It’s not something that can be proven 100%, but most of the studies about Perot voters showed second choices split pretty evenly between Bush and Clinton (with a healthy dose of people saying they wouldn’t have voted). I’m not aware of any study that says Perot took enough votes away from Bush that he would have won otherwise.
Recent polls are good news for Biden.
That is, people have a terrible view of the economy and he's *still* tied with Trump. If the economy continues to be good over the next year people's views will almost certainly improve and this will redound to Biden's benefit and he will have a much better chance of beating Trump.
If the economy turns sour, he will almost certainly lose to Trump, but if the economy is seen as bad, almost any Democratic replacement for Biden would lose as well.
Anyone who claims this economy is "good" reveals that he doesn't buy his own groceries.
No one who has to pay a grocery bill every week thinks this economy is "good."