What Biden could do to prove moderate chops is…take on the most unpopular, divisive positions of the far left, and push sensible policy that addresses the same issues.
I think wealth tax is a perfect example. This is a stupid idea - it is Constitutionally impermissible, would obviously be challenged and likely overturned without an amendment and therefore is dumb politics. Biden should say so, loudly, that we don’t have to reinvent these wheels, we only need to reform/rewind Trust and Estate law to revive estate taxation (exemption is currently like $12MM and a joke anyway for wealthy families due to massive loopholes.)
I also think a sensible middle ground position on trans accommodation in public education could be incredibly effective at dispelling narratives Biden is beholden to a far left out of control. but it obviously comes with risks. Perhaps a mandate that families may opt into (or out of) trans-positive sex education program for their children is a reasonable middle ground that would help take heat off this issue. Seems a reasonable compromise position that gives freedom and choice to families, but would for sure upset many on the left. But might be countered by noting how this would help trans kids in states with “Don’t say gay” type laws, and could come with a sunset that forces re-evaluation in a few years.
I think Biden and team should follow your policy and messaging advice, and I think he should dump Harris in favor of some other more likable, centrist governor in a red or purple state. These two actions are compatible and may be enough to convince centrist, normie voters to re-elect him.
Since Harris is both black and female, that means that any move to dump her would be vilified by progressives as both racist and sexist, whether the actual reasons have anything to do with race or sex or not. The intra-party discord this would bring would be really, really bad. Plus, such a move would be portrayed by the news media as a desperate move by a losing candidate. And, whoever Biden replaces Harris with would have their own issues, and it's not clear they'd be liked by swing voters any better, once the GOP attack ads kick in.
Overall, I think Matt is right that replacing Harris would have a large downside risk and very little upside.
I'm not worried about Biden's age. I'm worried he'll die and Harris would be President. Obama picked Biden to assure voters he wasn't a flaming leftist. He ignore race and gender preferences. Biden needs a VP who can assure voters that someone competent can take over if he can't perform his duties. Harris's background is criminal justice. She hasn't shown scope or depth on other issues, and the Democrats treat (use) her like the Republicans used Sarah Palin: keep her in the background with no path towards leadership. The only downside is alienating Black voters. But t here are other black women with more national and varied experience/
I'm frankly surprised (but not disappointed by any means) that Matt hasn't been cancelled for suggesting entirely sensible things like this. Normally I find that any suggestion that Democrats should even merely posture as 10% less progressive, even if just for the general election, is met online with vicious replies and insistence that the suggester is either a right-wing troll or a paid corporate shill.
This is the Democrats' election to lose. We have an 91x indicted insurrectionist dementia-addled psychopath that wants to abolish the Constitution and execute members of the government and press that disagree with him running on the Republican ticket. I don't like that nearly 50% of the country thinks voting for this guy is totally in bounds, but here we are.
I just don't get the impression that most Democrats, especially the more progressive-leaning ones, realize what is at stake. They seem to drink the MSNBC kool-aid that "any day now Trump will be arrested/found guilty/sent to prison/and we'll never have to deal with him again.....la dee da!"
Almost every day I see a new poll with Trump beating Biden or Biden winning, but only by a few percentage points. Do you guys not remember that Democrats have to win the popular by at least 5-7% to win the EC? Biden barely squeezed by with 5% last time and it was still very close. With local Republican led districts and election supervisors radicalized by the far right, do you think they will just run a fair and square election in 2024?
I'm officially panicking now. Pivoting to the center is the most sensible thing that Biden and the Democrats can do right now, but I'm still not holding my breath.
Don't Panic! One thing I think everyone should do when thinking about 2024 is remember that 2020 was unlike any other election due to the huge mail-in/absentee vote. Millions of voters cast a ballot that otherwise wouldn't have bothered to stand in line at the polls. The key will be how many of Trump's current "likely" voters are actually unlikely.
I think honestly he needs to switch out Kamala. There is no other prominent black woman who can take her place, which will lead to incandescent rage among liberal media outlets like the NYT, but Democrats listen to them too much as it is.
I am a huge Biden fan. I honestly think he is the third greatest president in history, behind Washington and Lincoln. All three saved the Union from existential threats. I think he’s done great work as president, but he secured his place in history the day he was inaugurated.
At the same time, I saw him speak at a press conference, and wow, he is old. I really question where he will be mentally and physically in 2028, assuming he doesn’t die, or even worse, become incapacitated. If I, a rabid Biden fan, am nervous about that, I shudder to think what a swing voter feels. I would feel a lot better if he had a more popular VP, with an implicit nod to the fact that they may pick up the torch before Biden’s second term ends.
I think Whitmer would be a great standard bearer. Or Buttigieg.
This is wher McCain definitively lost my vote. But.. there's a difference between, I think she'd be a not great president, and Palin who I thought would be terrible
I agree with you on all these points. But, when I feel pessimistic and want to do something crazy, I wonder whether the current ticket could be replaced by Gretchen Whitmer as the presidential candidate and Biden himself as the VP candidate (yes, VP again -- there are no term limits on VPs). A sort of Santos-McGarry ticket -- fresh blood at the top and wisdom and experience in the second chair. (I could also cite George W. and Cheney, as an example, but I won't.) It would all depend on Biden himself being of the view that this move would be necessary to keep Trump out of office. The downside is that the ticket would become all-white. The upsides would be: a presidential candidate without an age problem, a female presidential candidate without Hillary-like baggage, the removal of Harris from the ticket, an opportunity for Biden himself to show super-statesmanlike devotion to the country and become an icon of selflessness, and keeping Biden and many of his acolytes in government (for those of us who think he is doing a fantastic job). It might be a downside that the Dems would sort of forego the incumbency advantage -- but isn't the concern about Biden's age effectively eroding that advantage this time around? And I think there may be a contrary advantage for the Dems to refuse to go along with the "rematch" concept, which will haunt press coverage of a Biden-Trump competition and might tempt a number of voters into simply "trying the other guy" the second time around. Anyone like this idea, or like it with someone other than Whitmer at the top of the ticket? (if so, who else?)
This is a kind (too kind, really) way of telling Chait, Barro, Bill Kristol, and countless other addled centrist pundits from all walks of life to stuff the Let's Have A Fun Exciting Primary (Or VP Replacement) idea back where it came from.
My unkind way of telling them that:
If you think President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have done a great job, the straightforward way to thank them for that is to help get them re-elected, not panic and look for a magic-wand solution in an unnamed Someone Else.
Doing the latter unwittingly evinces lack of confidence in Biden/Harris's record and performance, and communicates disapproval of it to the broader public.
That makes a second Trump term more, not less, likely. No matter how much Chait, Barro, Kristol, Stoddard, Ignatius, etc. etc. etc. might wish and hope and imagine to the contrary.
Yes, there are risks in sticking with the old elderly grandpa incumbent Leader of the Free World. No, they are not greater--and are likely smaller--than replacing him or his historic running mate, one year before the election.
You like Biden, the guy standing in Trump's way? Re-elect him. Not rocket science.
(Also, they should find some more useful topic to fill blank column space. Going on about this, to quote another centrist pundit, is like musing about why the sky is blue, not green.)
P.S.: FWIW, my impression of Biden/Harris campaign strategy in 2023 is that they're doing all you recommend here, just somewhat delayed. Also, the public being distracted, misdirected, and headline-bedazzled by the other big momentous and/or shiny things in this year--Trump's indictments, the Debt Ceiling/Government Shutdown High Noon, the Ukraine war in general, etc. Yeah, not an excuse, but (etc.)
The big problem with any contemplated ticket change is there are no viable options with any profile or "brand" in the Democratic party. The best time to start building those options was immediately following the last election. The second-best time is now...but it is too late for the next election, barring a D celebrity (Tom Hanks, Oprah, or the like) making an improbable (and likely unsuccessful) run.
Biden and Harris are well-known. And while the subscribers to SB can likely name a bunch of other Ds, outside of politics nerds and the Beltway, there are few others with good or usable brands that would be serious candidates for replacement.
I am pretty sure if there were any other people, we would have been seriously discussing them for the last few years. This is something the Ds need to invest heavily in for the future -- the bench is not deep enough, and too many of the high-profile Ds are ancient. (that is not to say age in and of itself is a disqualifier, but realistically the current top rank won't be around forever, and they do not seem to have a good succession plan in place).
Citizens United and other forces helped transform US politics into big business. Business hates uncertainty and risk, and business loves brands because they are easy and reduce risk.
The GOP latched onto the brand (or dynasty) idea with Bush. Bush 1 was a spin-off of the Reagan years (if you loved Ronald, you'll at least like Bush 1!). Bush 2 was clearly "from the people who brought you Reagan and Bush 1!"
Given the low-wattage charmlessness of the GOP's 2016 contenders, it is no surprise that Trump -- a branding master -- completely dominated the field, even blowing away Jeb Bush (the next obvious brand choice). The GOP has been transparent that even if they don't actually like Trump, he's a big, well-known brand who gets tons of free press and advertising, and who will do their bidding. So Trump it was, and Trump it will (almost certainly) be.
The Democratic Party has had their own brand and dynasty with the Clintons (for better or worse). Biden was also able to build on the success of the Obama years.
We got complacent with the HC campaign, thinking nobody in their right mind would pick Trump. But the decades of GOP attacks on the Clinton brand soured some voters on HC. And it is worth noting that HC was so lackluster, she couldn't even beat Barack Obama -- at the time, effectively a nobody -- in her own party's primary.
Biden played identity politics poorly. If you’re going to makes overtures to a group then pick someone popular in that group. As I was thinking through this it was first obvious Biden errored in his efforts toward Blacks because they don’t have affection for her. But then it occurred to me that it was really box checking Whites wokes that he was making overtures too. Well, here we are.
It should be added that replacing Biden makes no sense if you're someone who genuinely thinks the Republicans are going to stage a coup d'état in 2024. If Biden declares he's not running for re-election then the one thing everyone knows constitutionally speaking is that Biden will not be president after midday on January 20, 2025. That opens the door far wider for any sort of hypothetical mischief than if Biden is sitting in the Oval Office from election day onward showing no signs of leaving.
Super depressed about this. Maybe it wouldn't work to replace either of them, but they are a historically weak ticket, and now Cornel West is going to shave a few DSA votes off the pile as well. A Trump victory is at least 50/50 I think. Then God knows what happens, both domestically and foreignly.
Anybody who's going to vote for Cornel West wasn't going to vote for Biden regardless. The fallacy of third-party voters is the assumption that if the third-party candidate were not on the ballot they would vote for one of the two major candidates.
Yeah, but they might just cast a throwaway vote for a different candidate (I mean, look, the Green Party is always going to run a candidate because that's what they do.)
Anybody planning to vote for Cornel Freaking West is probably not a gettable vote for Biden.
Worth pointing out that the last Dem President who didn't suffer a wipeout in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter -- Dems lost 15 House seats and 3 Senate seats but still held both houses by a comfortable margin.
Good points.
What Biden could do to prove moderate chops is…take on the most unpopular, divisive positions of the far left, and push sensible policy that addresses the same issues.
I think wealth tax is a perfect example. This is a stupid idea - it is Constitutionally impermissible, would obviously be challenged and likely overturned without an amendment and therefore is dumb politics. Biden should say so, loudly, that we don’t have to reinvent these wheels, we only need to reform/rewind Trust and Estate law to revive estate taxation (exemption is currently like $12MM and a joke anyway for wealthy families due to massive loopholes.)
I also think a sensible middle ground position on trans accommodation in public education could be incredibly effective at dispelling narratives Biden is beholden to a far left out of control. but it obviously comes with risks. Perhaps a mandate that families may opt into (or out of) trans-positive sex education program for their children is a reasonable middle ground that would help take heat off this issue. Seems a reasonable compromise position that gives freedom and choice to families, but would for sure upset many on the left. But might be countered by noting how this would help trans kids in states with “Don’t say gay” type laws, and could come with a sunset that forces re-evaluation in a few years.
I think Biden and team should follow your policy and messaging advice, and I think he should dump Harris in favor of some other more likable, centrist governor in a red or purple state. These two actions are compatible and may be enough to convince centrist, normie voters to re-elect him.
Since Harris is both black and female, that means that any move to dump her would be vilified by progressives as both racist and sexist, whether the actual reasons have anything to do with race or sex or not. The intra-party discord this would bring would be really, really bad. Plus, such a move would be portrayed by the news media as a desperate move by a losing candidate. And, whoever Biden replaces Harris with would have their own issues, and it's not clear they'd be liked by swing voters any better, once the GOP attack ads kick in.
Overall, I think Matt is right that replacing Harris would have a large downside risk and very little upside.
I'm not worried about Biden's age. I'm worried he'll die and Harris would be President. Obama picked Biden to assure voters he wasn't a flaming leftist. He ignore race and gender preferences. Biden needs a VP who can assure voters that someone competent can take over if he can't perform his duties. Harris's background is criminal justice. She hasn't shown scope or depth on other issues, and the Democrats treat (use) her like the Republicans used Sarah Palin: keep her in the background with no path towards leadership. The only downside is alienating Black voters. But t here are other black women with more national and varied experience/
I'm frankly surprised (but not disappointed by any means) that Matt hasn't been cancelled for suggesting entirely sensible things like this. Normally I find that any suggestion that Democrats should even merely posture as 10% less progressive, even if just for the general election, is met online with vicious replies and insistence that the suggester is either a right-wing troll or a paid corporate shill.
This is the Democrats' election to lose. We have an 91x indicted insurrectionist dementia-addled psychopath that wants to abolish the Constitution and execute members of the government and press that disagree with him running on the Republican ticket. I don't like that nearly 50% of the country thinks voting for this guy is totally in bounds, but here we are.
I just don't get the impression that most Democrats, especially the more progressive-leaning ones, realize what is at stake. They seem to drink the MSNBC kool-aid that "any day now Trump will be arrested/found guilty/sent to prison/and we'll never have to deal with him again.....la dee da!"
Almost every day I see a new poll with Trump beating Biden or Biden winning, but only by a few percentage points. Do you guys not remember that Democrats have to win the popular by at least 5-7% to win the EC? Biden barely squeezed by with 5% last time and it was still very close. With local Republican led districts and election supervisors radicalized by the far right, do you think they will just run a fair and square election in 2024?
I'm officially panicking now. Pivoting to the center is the most sensible thing that Biden and the Democrats can do right now, but I'm still not holding my breath.
Don't Panic! One thing I think everyone should do when thinking about 2024 is remember that 2020 was unlike any other election due to the huge mail-in/absentee vote. Millions of voters cast a ballot that otherwise wouldn't have bothered to stand in line at the polls. The key will be how many of Trump's current "likely" voters are actually unlikely.
The “Hands” ad seems like a comically terrible idea but a great setup for a punchline about “Handsy Uncle Joe”
I think honestly he needs to switch out Kamala. There is no other prominent black woman who can take her place, which will lead to incandescent rage among liberal media outlets like the NYT, but Democrats listen to them too much as it is.
I am a huge Biden fan. I honestly think he is the third greatest president in history, behind Washington and Lincoln. All three saved the Union from existential threats. I think he’s done great work as president, but he secured his place in history the day he was inaugurated.
At the same time, I saw him speak at a press conference, and wow, he is old. I really question where he will be mentally and physically in 2028, assuming he doesn’t die, or even worse, become incapacitated. If I, a rabid Biden fan, am nervous about that, I shudder to think what a swing voter feels. I would feel a lot better if he had a more popular VP, with an implicit nod to the fact that they may pick up the torch before Biden’s second term ends.
I think Whitmer would be a great standard bearer. Or Buttigieg.
Let’s be brutally honest and stop dodging reality.
If re-elected Biden is very unlikely to finish the term even if he lives through it. So the VP will be president after Biden if he wins.
So isn’t it important to choose the veep who we think would be the best president? Not many people think that’s KH.
That’s what voters are going to be thinking when they vote. Let’s get ahead of the problem now.
This is wher McCain definitively lost my vote. But.. there's a difference between, I think she'd be a not great president, and Palin who I thought would be terrible
I agree with you on all these points. But, when I feel pessimistic and want to do something crazy, I wonder whether the current ticket could be replaced by Gretchen Whitmer as the presidential candidate and Biden himself as the VP candidate (yes, VP again -- there are no term limits on VPs). A sort of Santos-McGarry ticket -- fresh blood at the top and wisdom and experience in the second chair. (I could also cite George W. and Cheney, as an example, but I won't.) It would all depend on Biden himself being of the view that this move would be necessary to keep Trump out of office. The downside is that the ticket would become all-white. The upsides would be: a presidential candidate without an age problem, a female presidential candidate without Hillary-like baggage, the removal of Harris from the ticket, an opportunity for Biden himself to show super-statesmanlike devotion to the country and become an icon of selflessness, and keeping Biden and many of his acolytes in government (for those of us who think he is doing a fantastic job). It might be a downside that the Dems would sort of forego the incumbency advantage -- but isn't the concern about Biden's age effectively eroding that advantage this time around? And I think there may be a contrary advantage for the Dems to refuse to go along with the "rematch" concept, which will haunt press coverage of a Biden-Trump competition and might tempt a number of voters into simply "trying the other guy" the second time around. Anyone like this idea, or like it with someone other than Whitmer at the top of the ticket? (if so, who else?)
Basically agreed.
This is a kind (too kind, really) way of telling Chait, Barro, Bill Kristol, and countless other addled centrist pundits from all walks of life to stuff the Let's Have A Fun Exciting Primary (Or VP Replacement) idea back where it came from.
My unkind way of telling them that:
If you think President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have done a great job, the straightforward way to thank them for that is to help get them re-elected, not panic and look for a magic-wand solution in an unnamed Someone Else.
Doing the latter unwittingly evinces lack of confidence in Biden/Harris's record and performance, and communicates disapproval of it to the broader public.
That makes a second Trump term more, not less, likely. No matter how much Chait, Barro, Kristol, Stoddard, Ignatius, etc. etc. etc. might wish and hope and imagine to the contrary.
Yes, there are risks in sticking with the old elderly grandpa incumbent Leader of the Free World. No, they are not greater--and are likely smaller--than replacing him or his historic running mate, one year before the election.
You like Biden, the guy standing in Trump's way? Re-elect him. Not rocket science.
(Also, they should find some more useful topic to fill blank column space. Going on about this, to quote another centrist pundit, is like musing about why the sky is blue, not green.)
P.S.: FWIW, my impression of Biden/Harris campaign strategy in 2023 is that they're doing all you recommend here, just somewhat delayed. Also, the public being distracted, misdirected, and headline-bedazzled by the other big momentous and/or shiny things in this year--Trump's indictments, the Debt Ceiling/Government Shutdown High Noon, the Ukraine war in general, etc. Yeah, not an excuse, but (etc.)
The big problem with any contemplated ticket change is there are no viable options with any profile or "brand" in the Democratic party. The best time to start building those options was immediately following the last election. The second-best time is now...but it is too late for the next election, barring a D celebrity (Tom Hanks, Oprah, or the like) making an improbable (and likely unsuccessful) run.
Biden and Harris are well-known. And while the subscribers to SB can likely name a bunch of other Ds, outside of politics nerds and the Beltway, there are few others with good or usable brands that would be serious candidates for replacement.
I am pretty sure if there were any other people, we would have been seriously discussing them for the last few years. This is something the Ds need to invest heavily in for the future -- the bench is not deep enough, and too many of the high-profile Ds are ancient. (that is not to say age in and of itself is a disqualifier, but realistically the current top rank won't be around forever, and they do not seem to have a good succession plan in place).
Citizens United and other forces helped transform US politics into big business. Business hates uncertainty and risk, and business loves brands because they are easy and reduce risk.
The GOP latched onto the brand (or dynasty) idea with Bush. Bush 1 was a spin-off of the Reagan years (if you loved Ronald, you'll at least like Bush 1!). Bush 2 was clearly "from the people who brought you Reagan and Bush 1!"
Given the low-wattage charmlessness of the GOP's 2016 contenders, it is no surprise that Trump -- a branding master -- completely dominated the field, even blowing away Jeb Bush (the next obvious brand choice). The GOP has been transparent that even if they don't actually like Trump, he's a big, well-known brand who gets tons of free press and advertising, and who will do their bidding. So Trump it was, and Trump it will (almost certainly) be.
The Democratic Party has had their own brand and dynasty with the Clintons (for better or worse). Biden was also able to build on the success of the Obama years.
We got complacent with the HC campaign, thinking nobody in their right mind would pick Trump. But the decades of GOP attacks on the Clinton brand soured some voters on HC. And it is worth noting that HC was so lackluster, she couldn't even beat Barack Obama -- at the time, effectively a nobody -- in her own party's primary.
I don’t think abortion is a smart thing to try to moderate on because after Dobbs, abortion is a winning issue for Democrats.
The main issue where there might be some political benefit to tacking right is immigration.
Biden played identity politics poorly. If you’re going to makes overtures to a group then pick someone popular in that group. As I was thinking through this it was first obvious Biden errored in his efforts toward Blacks because they don’t have affection for her. But then it occurred to me that it was really box checking Whites wokes that he was making overtures too. Well, here we are.
It should be added that replacing Biden makes no sense if you're someone who genuinely thinks the Republicans are going to stage a coup d'état in 2024. If Biden declares he's not running for re-election then the one thing everyone knows constitutionally speaking is that Biden will not be president after midday on January 20, 2025. That opens the door far wider for any sort of hypothetical mischief than if Biden is sitting in the Oval Office from election day onward showing no signs of leaving.
Super depressed about this. Maybe it wouldn't work to replace either of them, but they are a historically weak ticket, and now Cornel West is going to shave a few DSA votes off the pile as well. A Trump victory is at least 50/50 I think. Then God knows what happens, both domestically and foreignly.
Anybody who's going to vote for Cornel West wasn't going to vote for Biden regardless. The fallacy of third-party voters is the assumption that if the third-party candidate were not on the ballot they would vote for one of the two major candidates.
I'm sure some would and some wouldn't. Lots of people take pride in the fact that they get out and vote every year.
Yeah, but they might just cast a throwaway vote for a different candidate (I mean, look, the Green Party is always going to run a candidate because that's what they do.)
Anybody planning to vote for Cornel Freaking West is probably not a gettable vote for Biden.
Worth pointing out that the last Dem President who didn't suffer a wipeout in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter -- Dems lost 15 House seats and 3 Senate seats but still held both houses by a comfortable margin.