Thanks for this breakdown on the international side of things, Ben. Earlier this week, I did my own tale of the tape of prior presidents' decisions on whether or not to run for reelection, and even then I was failing to find many close examples. Most presidents knew when to press on and when to quit. I agree that we're in uncharted waters here.
The first one that came to mind was Martin Van Buren, who was deeply unpopular in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837....but he was renominated by acclamation. That seemed to have been a Democrats problem rather an a Van Buren problem, the opposite of the conundrum Biden is posing on the party.
Franklin Pierce is probably a better example, really messing things up with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and actively lost a challenge to James Buchanan. (Little did they know that at the time they were exchanging a giant douche for an even bigger turd sandwich...)
The Republicans had their own version of Van Buren with Hoover in 1932, but their gooses were cooked anyway.
LBJ was also mentioned, but the two other contemporary examples to consider are Ford and Carter. Both had popularity problems of their own, and both ended up facing vigorous primary challenges in Reagan and Ted Kennedy...but the big differences there is that there was long an opposition figure that was unafraid to challenge, and that opposers could coalesce around. (And in Reagan's case, it could have been a poisoned chalice if he had defeated Ford.)
Ultimately though, the example I think of most is George Washington. He could have been president until he died if he wanted...but he instead made the wise decision to establish the doctrine of the peaceful transfer of power. And indeed, Washington would have not survived a third term. Biden needs to be reminded of Washington the most above all else, in my opinion.
And I'll conclude by observing that the concept of replacement level is so important for everyone to learn, including in politics and among politicians, and yet it's only commonly known among those who are in and follow sports. Once someone performs below replacement level, then getting anyone available has better odds of performing better. You're not guaranteed to get Johnny Unbeatable, but you could have better chances to get Johnny Less Likely To Be Beaten.
I asked ChatGPT to analyze the "Corn Pop" anecdote in the framework of game theory.
"Conclusion
Given the payoffs, Biden’s best strategy is to apologize, as it maximizes the chances of a positive outcome for both parties. Apologizing shows respect to Corn Pop, which encourages de-escalation. This approach aligns with cooperative game theory, where both players aim to achieve mutual benefit. By apologizing, Biden avoided conflict and gained Corn Pop’s respect, resulting in a stable and positive resolution."
Matt also just mentioned 1912. [https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1812138198622986355] The answer is that Republicans definitely would have won if they weren't split. The problem here for comparisons is that Taft won a spirited competitive nomination, and then TR stabbed him in the back with his third party run. Don't see that happening now, as Democrats would be well aware that it would hand a landslide win to Trump.
Personally if the Democratic Party wants to win in 2024 they would pick someone not named Harris or Biden, and frankly not pick anyone in his administration. No Mayor Pete (who I think erred in not running for the Michigan senate seat), no Raimando, a clean break from the current leadership. Pick a Governor, probably Whitmer, and roll the dice.
Would this work? Who knows? What they’re doing now isn’t working
I would add, Nate Silver and others keep parroting that replacing Biden isn’t about the politics. This is lunacy. Of course it’s about the politics. If Biden were in the same polling position he was in 2020 he’d be the nominee, with no questions asked. He isn’t, and we can have the philosophical debate as to whether his age caused his decline or something else, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Democrats are losing, and Biden doesn’t seem capable of improving his position. That’s why the examples listed above changed horses, and it’s why Democrats should change horses now.
>I would add, Nate Silver and others keep parroting that replacing Biden isn’t about the politics<
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I subscribe to Silver and my observation is that he's overwhelmingly focusing on the strong electability case for a different nominee. As are other people. Almost every public call for Joe Biden to stand down—from George Clooney to Stephen King to Michael Bennet to Paul Krugman—is prefaced with heartfelt praise and gratitude for a job well done on the part of this president. I think I'm pretty typical of many Democrats in that I don't doubt for a moment a second Biden term would be hugely superior to a Trump restoration; so for me it's purely about the politics. I strongly believe Joe is headed for an ugly loss.
1. Silver has questioned whether Biden should be president right now
2. In his most recent post he said the polls are besides the point, Biden can’t really campaign. Which, sure, but if Biden were up by 2020 margins his ability to campaign would be irrelevant. His current strategy would be the prudent one
3. In their recent Matter of Opinion podcast, NYT columnists compared Democrats inability to replace Biden with Republicans inability to replace Trump, with Douthag explicitly saying both are unfit for the presidency regardless of polling
But nonetheless this is overwhelmingly about the politics. Let's imagine a parallel universe where America was more like it was circa 1984, and low unemployment, lack of war, falling inflation and a booming stock market guaranteed reelection—and Biden was consequently up big in the polls.
While it would obviously still be the case that having an 81 year old, declining senior citizen as president wouldn't be optimal (far from it), the country nonetheless wouldn't be engaged in a huge freakout about the merits or feasibility of jettisoning said president from the Democratic ticket.
Side note: I've always disliked the idea of congressional term limits (I think they make sense for the executive branch), but we absolutely should amend the constitution for *age* limits for both Congress and the presidency.
I don’t think Biden should or needs to resign, and I’d retort that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is absurd. Sure, if you asked Americans to name their perfect leader you’d pick a 40-50 year old highly experienced politician. There aren’t that many of those who also have the ideological qualifications to win a primary and the name recognition to run. Biden was the choice in 2020 for good reason.
I also don’t like age restrictions. Nobody thinks Bernie Sanders is so unhealthy he can’t be President. He’s older than Biden, Nancy Pelosi is Biden’s age. Overall age is fairly arbitrary; Biden’s problem isn’t that he’s 81 it’s that his health has deteriorated.
But most people would never vote for Bernie Sanders for President anyway. We don't know if he'd be in the same robust health if he'd been serving as President through the multiple crises Biden has had to deal with. I do think Biden needs to resign as candidate, he's clearly has the ability to serve out his term but is not fit to campaign and probably would have to be removed at some point in a second term if by some miracle he was re-elected.
Pete made the right choice not running for that seat. Slotkin has a record of overperforming the fundamentals in her House races, and she’s actually from the state. Compared to him she’s got better odds of holding the seat.
I just think he needs to finds a political home where he can keep his profile, and I don’t think his current perch is enough. Maybe he could win a House seat but that’s too low, so he either challenges Gary Peters or tries to win the governors mansion. The open seat seemed like a good opportunity
Agreed. I think MP has (or has had) his eye on Governor, once Whitmer terms out in 2026. (Or, you know, whatever else happens in the meantime.) He's an executive, not a legislator - it's his brand, but also his skillset.
Also Slotkin has been consistently ahead in the polls against a very strong Republican challenger (former Rep. Mike Rogers, who was probably the best candidate the GOP could have recruited). But only a few points ahead - so if anybody's looking for someplace to direct your campaign donations, this would be a good choice.
The problem with all this is that we don't know what's wrong. We can comb through history all we like but we're literally never been in this position before, coming out of a once in a century international pandemic, our social fabric shredded by social media, with an 81 year old incumbent that we only picked to avoid a divisive convention fight in 2020. Biden has been a great president by the standards of economic improvement and legislative accomplishment, but he was never a great candidate--his win in 2020 was a fluke.
Everyone knows that Biden isn’t going to be running the country in 2 years, if he runs it now, and no one knows what the transition to Harris is going to look like, or when it will happen. Maybe Hunter and Jill manage to hold everything together while a recalcitrant Joe refuses to step aside for 4 years. 25th amendment for Democrats next year? Or do the Bidens stock the cabinet with loyalists who would never do that? Who knows? Do we think it’s important? Most Democrats won’t speak of anything beyond November.
Trump has managed to turn a lot of the institutions that oppose him into funhouse mirrors of his own bullshit. There’s no need to demonstrate actual integrity or honesty, or accountability, because Trump. I don’t know which party is going to win in November, but it feels like we all lost a lot in the Trump era.
The talk of the 25th Amendment I've seen recently mostly ignores that it's a high bar if the president (or, say, his crackhead son and/or "doctor" wife) is able to send a letter to Congress saying, "Nope, I'm fine." In that event, the barrier to removal of the president's powers is higher than for impeachment.
Father's Day by John Calvin Batchelor is a great (and underrated) novel built around the flaws in the 25th (a president steps aside to deal with depression, announces he's cured and coming back, and the VP says "no you aren't"). Highly recommended.
I think if his cabinet, including the VP, invoke the 25th amendment, then the house will follow suit even if Biden sends the letter. It's choosing a replacement VP that is going to a cluster in that situation, especially if the Senate is close.
Democratic caucus yes, but if Biden is the president and Republicans control either the house or senate, I suspect they will demand a large voice in the selection of the new VP.
The idea of Joe still being in office next year is kind of hard to imagine. He seems entirely out of touch with anyone beyond the Democratic base, which is nowhere near as big as he thinks. There are a lot of people who will vote for anyone rather than Trump, but not enough.
I disagree with this article's conclusion and implications for Democrats. I lived through the UK and part of the Australian transition discussed. My conclusion from those experiences is that there is nothing special about leadership transition campaigns. Just like a regular campaign, you need to project competence and offer solutions to voters' top priorities.
Johnson took the Tories went from a hung parliament under May to a large majority. How?
1) He offered a solution to the country's #1 policy problem , which May had clearly failed to
2) May ran an awful campaign in '17 with a big policy idea so bad she didn't just withdraw it, she pretended she hadn't proposed it
3) In between the two elections, Labour got embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal and its leader (Corbyn) was seen to some extent to have sided with Russia when it murdered two people on British soil in 2018.
So, there were major changes that helped the Tories and they did much better. Nothing special.
The Gillard/Rudd mess ended in a big defeat for Labour in 2013. The two major items I recall from that election were:
1) Labour never united behind a leader. They admitted afterwards that political journalists spent those years getting incoming calls from the Labour factions briefing against each other. While they were in government. Embarrassing.
2) Labour put in place an unpopular carbon tax while kinda pretending that they hadn't by changing its name (to carbon price). Their opponents ran on "Axe the tax".
So again, nothing special. Labour were a mess and had an unpopular policy and they lost.
The personnel of the Democratic party's leadership is not a topic I follow closely. But in the last few weeks I've heard and read that when asked, voters say their #1 problem with Biden isn't policy, it's age. There's also polling showing him running behind virtually every Democratic senate candidate. So that suggests Democrats will get a big boost from making a change, because it will alleviate a major voter concern. They will still need to run a good campaign because the last few weeks has been a fiasco that has undermined their credibility. So it's not a magic wand. But the opportunity to suddenly fix a voter pain-point is there and Democrats should be clear-eyed about that.
Can't agree with this enough. Significant majority of the country would rather not go through the Trump years again...they saw them as exhausting. Just nominate someone who is not "old as _____." (And I'm closer to Biden's age than I am to Milan's.....wait, it's real close....by months.)
More worrying, I think, is that a significant portion of voters found the Trump years perfectly fine, the economy improving (basically on the same trajectory it had under Obama) up until the pandemic hit. These people blame Biden for everything that has gone wrong since 2021, and think Trump can bring back the "before" times. The trouble is, Trump hardly did anything besides toilet-tweet the first time around, for his second term he is far better organized and would do far more damage.
The better Australian example is Labor replacing Bill Hayden with Bob Hawke *3 weeks* prior to the 83 election. Labor won comfortably, but the Australia was in pretty bad shape at the time and the Liberal party were taking the blame. As Hayden put it, "a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory, the way the country is".
My pure speculation is that anyone who is significantly younger than Biden would beat Trump. As all of a sudden Trump is clearly too old; and, related, the race becomes clearly about Trump's negatives. Easy peasy. (Like many middle-aged Americans I look at my parents -- roughly the same age as Biden....no, they can't do the job as president). Heck my business partner (about the same age as Trump)....I humor him...but he shouldn't be making decisions anymore.
I texted about this with a close friend yesterday who is well-known in D-politics (most of you would know this person's name)....the response I got is that pretty much everyone on the Hill agrees offline...anyone can beat Trump. They just have to be younge.r
They were still able to have the primary - LBJ obviously didn’t know when he bowed out of the race that the winner of the race would be assassinated before he could be nominated.
A very good point. It would have been simpler to have said “times were different” in those with actual bosses, with big up for grabs states, and the slices both ways George Wallace phenomenon.
This actually reinforces the “we’re not in Kansas” moment of our current situation. People actually have to recognize that it’s hard to cross a gaping chasm without at some point taking a big time risk.
Johnson's slogan, which I heard relentlessly in the 2019 election campaign was not "deliver on Brexit" but "Get Brexit Done", usually pronounced as if there were full stops after each word.
(Also "fledging" should probably be "floundering")
Yeah, floundering or flailing would be the correct choice. Dems can sometimes act like they were born yesterday but they are a midterm away from the party bicentennial.
My husband and I both had careers in IT. Although he is 80 & I am 82, we actively keep up with advances and challenges in the World. Biden appears to only focus on the past. A younger charismatic leader would have a stronger chance of beating Trump! We believe that leader would also be quicker to comprehend the pluses and minuses of AI and how to respond to the growing effects of warming oceans. In reviewing the most recent elections, we note that voters are choosing moderate candidates.
Younger people don’t have any significant future-forward ideas, either.
The entire idea of having a clear, compelling agenda focused on the future was enabled by disparities between science, engineering, and the economy. It meant we had a stock of major projects just waiting for technical advance or a budget that made them plausible.
But we’ve done those now, honestly. Everything going forward is going to be much more marginal or much less compelling.
Hunter Biden is not a good guy and he is an idiot. His father allowing him this close absolutely is a problem. He has a 5 year old daughter her has never held. I’m a dad with a daughter, something is deeply broken with a man that behaves that way.
I can forgive addiction, I have plenty of experience with it in my own family.
This is all very interesting but the decision for Biden should be as simple as: take the high variance choice when you have the lower expected outcome.
He's losing and the age thing means he has no chance to pick up votes. Even Dems are getting queasy about him having a second term.
To be more specific, American *public sector* unions make odd choices. Private sector unions have a much stronger adversary, so they have to be much more shrewd to survive.
Regarding Britain, Starmer won a stonking majority in 2024 with 33.7% of the vote. Corbyn lost in 2019 with 32.2% of the vote. The story is much more about highly focused targeting of swing voters in swing states - sorry, seats. I suppose that's one possible definition of 'political mainstream' but I don't think that was what Ben was actually trying to get at...
I don’t think this is about the party targeting voters - it’s about voters being smart as they move left or right with their votes. Given the current shape of the districts, it seems that Labour gets about 33% regardless of whether the electorate moves left or right. But if the electorate moves left, then Labour wins more in Labour-Tory marginals and loses votes in Labour-left marginals.
They're not actually the same districts as in 2019. There may be something to that... certainly there was more tactical voting and vote swaps, which Starmer being seen as 'more acceptable' to moderate LD voters may have contributed to.
The collapse of the SNP does to various scandals will certainly have contributed, especially with it disrupting their preparations for a (potential) snap election that actually happened.
Plus the, hmm, acceptability of Starmer even to conservatives allowed many of them to vote Reform instead... though the defenestrated Truss premiership will also have contributed to a 'Sunak's not really a conservative' vote.
A party that got 80% of the vote in Massachusetts and California but lost by 25 in the Great Lakes states (this is 2019 Labour) is "less mainstream" than a party that gets 52% in the Great Lakes states, 65% in Massachusetts, and 43% in Texas.
So I think using mainstream in this way is still accruate
To be a little picky, are we defining 'mainstream' voters as swing voters in swing seats (here I lay a trap for you, because swing or 'marginal' seats exist between lab-con, lib-lab, lib-con, and now grn-lab, rfm-lab, rfm-con, lib-grn as well, just to hit the main ones, and of course those 'edges' exist in places all over the political landscape. There are even multiway marginals).
Or are we purely defining 'mainstream' as 'true centre' or '+' shaped on the political compass?
This may be overly picky - it looks like labour won with both groups.
“While polling shows that this scenario is likely preferential to our current one….” The polls are interesting now and I think they need to settle. The message is ambiguous as best, but there is NO clear “dump Biden” message. We should all admit what we don’t know and look deeper and think harder.
What would a winning Biden campaign look like right now? I can easily image different successful scenarios. All require stopping the panic and the ultimatums and focusing on what we know.
Donald Trump must be the primary focus of the media and the voters between now and Nov. His new support comes from people who don’t remember his term. We have to remind them. That’s not hard.
If the remaining four months are about the Dems — even a triumphant convention with a conclusion written by Sorkin — we just are not going to win. Donald Trump is an incumbent. He’s an insurrection’s. He’s a liar, a con, a rapist and an unhealthy blob of a person. He was behind the biggest theft of civil liberties in our history. He stands for a revamping of the constitution that will leave every single person in peril.
It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???
Focus people, focus.
If Biden were 15, 20 points down not the polls I’d say drastic, risky measures were called for. We’d have nothing to lose.
But he’s not. He’s led in two solid polls in the last couple days. He’s down with men and up with women. And there are undecideds who will NEVER vote for Trump. Biden can win them back if he reminds them of the cost of not voting or going 3rd party.
This is NOT defcon 1 after all. Look at the polls and stop the panic and laser focus on Trump.
"It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???"
This is sort of the point that the Biden-Step-Aside people are trying to make. Trump is easy to attack and Biden often struggles to do so. At the debate he had a prime opportunity to attack Trump and instead lost the debate and embarrassed himself.
Both Harris and Pete and other Dems have been able to deliver Anti-Trump talking points far more clearly than Biden has.
"If Biden were 15, 20 points down not the polls I’d say drastic, risky measures were called for."
It seems pretty unlikely that any presidential candidate would be that far down in the polls in such polarized times.
>Trump is easy to attack and Biden often struggles to do so.<
I have a related take: if we play it right, the debate wasn't a debacle but an opportunity. The race had calcified into a grim-looking affair months ago if you were paying attention.
Democrats have been gifted with a plausible, eminently justifiable reason to assemble a different, more competitive ticket. Because even before the debate, the honest truth is they were very likely headed for a loss of the White House.
"It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???"
Has this case ever _stopped_ being made? Who is persuadable and _doesn't_ know how bad Trump is? They may have decided a bad Trump is still ok because of inflation, or immigration, or something like that. But I just don't know that there's much juice left to squeeze on the "Trump is bad" front, as much as I may personally agree Trump is really, really bad.
the thing is, for most people, the things that they might see Trump as bad at don't effect them personally (or they don't think they will). at this point it's about eliminating Trump alternative negatives. Trump's are already priced in.
"What would a winning Biden campaign look like right now?" I dunno, but the actual campaign the Dems need is a super energetic one with say multiple events a day etc. But it's pretty clear that Biden isn't capable of that anymore and so the campaign we are going to get is a classic "Rose Garden Strategy" where he does a few media events a week (see how after his big presser this week he's going to Delaware to take the weekend off).
This is all well and good when you are up by a lot like say Reagan in 84' or Nixon in 72' but but that's not where we are at and Matt et al's point is that unless that changes Trump is probably going to win.
A winning Biden campaign would probably have to involve a combination of a lot things. Biden would have to dramatically increase the cadence of his public appearances, and do so without making mistakes worse than the typical "Biden" gaffes we saw in 2020. It would require the party to re-unite behind him, once it's clear that he's not stepping down. It would require Biden to do dramatically better in the second debate. And, it would require Trump to make mistakes. For example, if the second debate shows Biden as the lucid one and Trump as the rambling one, that would go a long way.
Not saying that any of this is super-likely, or what Biden needs to do still being within his capabilities. But, it's least plausible.
Well yes this the crux of the debate Matt, and "Team Coconut" are saying "Biden isn't capable of doing these sorts of things anymore" and asking if he is or isn't is probably the most helpful way to think about it.
Yes. A campaign revamp. I suspect the Biden campaign knows that. He’s not goring to leave when he’s leading in some polls, not happening. But the elites and panic people have some leverage right now. Insist on the cognitive work up. And channel all the firepower and energy and talent on the party that is currently wringing its hands into coming up with a campaign strategy that maximizes Biden’s strengths and balances his limitations with the other talent in the party. Once the cognitive evaluation is done, publicized, maybe a press conf with the (independent) doc, Biden has earned the right to say “ I gave you what you asked for. I need to beat Trump now and I’m done talking about my cognitive capacity. I’m old, my back hurts, I don’t manage the stutter as well as I did. I’m still a great president with a great record and a clean bill of health and I defy Donald Trump to out match me on any of those grounds. He can’t. Where’s his current cognitive test. How are the sharks biting, Donald? Let’s get to work!”
So, let’s get to work. This handwringing and panicking is making me queasy.
I would argue that Biden’s greatest strength in terms of challenging Trump is now neutralized…namely honesty. It will be difficult to sell low info independents on the fact that Biden is more honest after hiding in this condition (or at least appearing to) for months/years. That is a liability that many alternatives would not have.
You don’t like Marist? Hmm. ABC shows a dead heat, how about that? Yes, people want him to go. All they hear is hysteria as promises of something better out there. But the polls say they are sticking with him, and this likely to be his lowest point. Little focus on Trumps lies, total focus on Joe’s debate debacle and the lack of faith of his party. And he’s still hanging in there poll wise. Check out 538.
I know there are bad state polls and I’m not saying there is no work to be done. I think I made that pretty clear. But this guy can still win if people get behind him with the least political cost.
>But this guy can still win if people get behind him<
That's tautological: yes, if Biden can get enough people to vote for him, he will win!
Marist has historically been very Dem friendly as I understand it. Rasmussen also released a poll yesterday. Has Trump up by six, I think. Now, Rasmussen is historically very pro-GOP—no doubt about it. But when you look at those two polls in tandem, they suggest Trump is leading by a good 3+ points. Which is the range this race seems to have settled into (especially in the swing states).
Biden's behind. That need not be fatal if there's an obvious path to overcome Trump's lead. But what is that path? I'm not seeing it absent a ticket change.
I can imagine a path but no one cares what a random political scientist thinks and I’m sure there are better ideas out there than mine. But if all the star power in the party spent a week coming up with strategies to save Biden’s candidacy (and yes, it needs bold thinking and getting out of the Biden campaign’s comfort zone for sure) instead of dreaming about their ideal tickets as if we were perched at the beginning of a normal primary season, we’d have a WAY better idea of the options we face and could decide if we are at the level of disaster that requires then hailest of all Hail Marys, which is what switching candidates 4 months out amounts to. We should take very seriously ALL the options.
I just wish every one would remember — the only way we win this — no matter who the nominee ends up being, is to keep the nation’s and thus the media’s attention solely focused on Trump for the maximum period of time. There is not much disagreement about that.
It won’t happen if the Democrats are continuing to fight with each other into the fall and then the media has a new shiny candidate to vet. We can’t afford it.
>the only way we win this — no matter who the nominee ends up being, is to keep the nation’s and thus the media’s attention solely focused on Trump for the maximum period of time.<
Earned media—which I agree is a critical element for winning political contests—is probably Joe Biden's single biggest weakness as a candidate.
Thanks for this breakdown on the international side of things, Ben. Earlier this week, I did my own tale of the tape of prior presidents' decisions on whether or not to run for reelection, and even then I was failing to find many close examples. Most presidents knew when to press on and when to quit. I agree that we're in uncharted waters here.
The first one that came to mind was Martin Van Buren, who was deeply unpopular in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837....but he was renominated by acclamation. That seemed to have been a Democrats problem rather an a Van Buren problem, the opposite of the conundrum Biden is posing on the party.
Franklin Pierce is probably a better example, really messing things up with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and actively lost a challenge to James Buchanan. (Little did they know that at the time they were exchanging a giant douche for an even bigger turd sandwich...)
The Republicans had their own version of Van Buren with Hoover in 1932, but their gooses were cooked anyway.
LBJ was also mentioned, but the two other contemporary examples to consider are Ford and Carter. Both had popularity problems of their own, and both ended up facing vigorous primary challenges in Reagan and Ted Kennedy...but the big differences there is that there was long an opposition figure that was unafraid to challenge, and that opposers could coalesce around. (And in Reagan's case, it could have been a poisoned chalice if he had defeated Ford.)
Ultimately though, the example I think of most is George Washington. He could have been president until he died if he wanted...but he instead made the wise decision to establish the doctrine of the peaceful transfer of power. And indeed, Washington would have not survived a third term. Biden needs to be reminded of Washington the most above all else, in my opinion.
And I'll conclude by observing that the concept of replacement level is so important for everyone to learn, including in politics and among politicians, and yet it's only commonly known among those who are in and follow sports. Once someone performs below replacement level, then getting anyone available has better odds of performing better. You're not guaranteed to get Johnny Unbeatable, but you could have better chances to get Johnny Less Likely To Be Beaten.
Everyone would be better off if they understood replacement level, expected value and simple game theory.
I’d love to hear a journalist ask Biden how he uses game theory et. al in his Administration.
Biden seems way more like an anecdote guy than an analytics guy.
I asked ChatGPT to analyze the "Corn Pop" anecdote in the framework of game theory.
"Conclusion
Given the payoffs, Biden’s best strategy is to apologize, as it maximizes the chances of a positive outcome for both parties. Apologizing shows respect to Corn Pop, which encourages de-escalation. This approach aligns with cooperative game theory, where both players aim to achieve mutual benefit. By apologizing, Biden avoided conflict and gained Corn Pop’s respect, resulting in a stable and positive resolution."
Wise dude, our president.
Biden isn't old. He just needs to upload himself to the cloud and become immortal.
"...ask Biden..."
Stephanopoulos asked Biden if he watched the debate. Biden's answer, "I don't think I did, no."
I'd love to hear his response to a question about game theory.
Matt also just mentioned 1912. [https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1812138198622986355] The answer is that Republicans definitely would have won if they weren't split. The problem here for comparisons is that Taft won a spirited competitive nomination, and then TR stabbed him in the back with his third party run. Don't see that happening now, as Democrats would be well aware that it would hand a landslide win to Trump.
No new third party run can be launched at this date anyway - unless Ohio and related states decide to change their policies just for fun.
Personally if the Democratic Party wants to win in 2024 they would pick someone not named Harris or Biden, and frankly not pick anyone in his administration. No Mayor Pete (who I think erred in not running for the Michigan senate seat), no Raimando, a clean break from the current leadership. Pick a Governor, probably Whitmer, and roll the dice.
Would this work? Who knows? What they’re doing now isn’t working
I would add, Nate Silver and others keep parroting that replacing Biden isn’t about the politics. This is lunacy. Of course it’s about the politics. If Biden were in the same polling position he was in 2020 he’d be the nominee, with no questions asked. He isn’t, and we can have the philosophical debate as to whether his age caused his decline or something else, but that is neither here nor there at this point. Democrats are losing, and Biden doesn’t seem capable of improving his position. That’s why the examples listed above changed horses, and it’s why Democrats should change horses now.
>I would add, Nate Silver and others keep parroting that replacing Biden isn’t about the politics<
Could you clarify what you mean by this? I subscribe to Silver and my observation is that he's overwhelmingly focusing on the strong electability case for a different nominee. As are other people. Almost every public call for Joe Biden to stand down—from George Clooney to Stephen King to Michael Bennet to Paul Krugman—is prefaced with heartfelt praise and gratitude for a job well done on the part of this president. I think I'm pretty typical of many Democrats in that I don't doubt for a moment a second Biden term would be hugely superior to a Trump restoration; so for me it's purely about the politics. I strongly believe Joe is headed for an ugly loss.
1. Silver has questioned whether Biden should be president right now
2. In his most recent post he said the polls are besides the point, Biden can’t really campaign. Which, sure, but if Biden were up by 2020 margins his ability to campaign would be irrelevant. His current strategy would be the prudent one
3. In their recent Matter of Opinion podcast, NYT columnists compared Democrats inability to replace Biden with Republicans inability to replace Trump, with Douthag explicitly saying both are unfit for the presidency regardless of polling
I agree with Silver that Biden should resign.
But nonetheless this is overwhelmingly about the politics. Let's imagine a parallel universe where America was more like it was circa 1984, and low unemployment, lack of war, falling inflation and a booming stock market guaranteed reelection—and Biden was consequently up big in the polls.
While it would obviously still be the case that having an 81 year old, declining senior citizen as president wouldn't be optimal (far from it), the country nonetheless wouldn't be engaged in a huge freakout about the merits or feasibility of jettisoning said president from the Democratic ticket.
Side note: I've always disliked the idea of congressional term limits (I think they make sense for the executive branch), but we absolutely should amend the constitution for *age* limits for both Congress and the presidency.
I don’t think Biden should or needs to resign, and I’d retort that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is absurd. Sure, if you asked Americans to name their perfect leader you’d pick a 40-50 year old highly experienced politician. There aren’t that many of those who also have the ideological qualifications to win a primary and the name recognition to run. Biden was the choice in 2020 for good reason.
I also don’t like age restrictions. Nobody thinks Bernie Sanders is so unhealthy he can’t be President. He’s older than Biden, Nancy Pelosi is Biden’s age. Overall age is fairly arbitrary; Biden’s problem isn’t that he’s 81 it’s that his health has deteriorated.
But most people would never vote for Bernie Sanders for President anyway. We don't know if he'd be in the same robust health if he'd been serving as President through the multiple crises Biden has had to deal with. I do think Biden needs to resign as candidate, he's clearly has the ability to serve out his term but is not fit to campaign and probably would have to be removed at some point in a second term if by some miracle he was re-elected.
Pete made the right choice not running for that seat. Slotkin has a record of overperforming the fundamentals in her House races, and she’s actually from the state. Compared to him she’s got better odds of holding the seat.
I just think he needs to finds a political home where he can keep his profile, and I don’t think his current perch is enough. Maybe he could win a House seat but that’s too low, so he either challenges Gary Peters or tries to win the governors mansion. The open seat seemed like a good opportunity
Agreed. I think MP has (or has had) his eye on Governor, once Whitmer terms out in 2026. (Or, you know, whatever else happens in the meantime.) He's an executive, not a legislator - it's his brand, but also his skillset.
Also Slotkin has been consistently ahead in the polls against a very strong Republican challenger (former Rep. Mike Rogers, who was probably the best candidate the GOP could have recruited). But only a few points ahead - so if anybody's looking for someplace to direct your campaign donations, this would be a good choice.
The problem with all this is that we don't know what's wrong. We can comb through history all we like but we're literally never been in this position before, coming out of a once in a century international pandemic, our social fabric shredded by social media, with an 81 year old incumbent that we only picked to avoid a divisive convention fight in 2020. Biden has been a great president by the standards of economic improvement and legislative accomplishment, but he was never a great candidate--his win in 2020 was a fluke.
Everyone knows that Biden isn’t going to be running the country in 2 years, if he runs it now, and no one knows what the transition to Harris is going to look like, or when it will happen. Maybe Hunter and Jill manage to hold everything together while a recalcitrant Joe refuses to step aside for 4 years. 25th amendment for Democrats next year? Or do the Bidens stock the cabinet with loyalists who would never do that? Who knows? Do we think it’s important? Most Democrats won’t speak of anything beyond November.
Trump has managed to turn a lot of the institutions that oppose him into funhouse mirrors of his own bullshit. There’s no need to demonstrate actual integrity or honesty, or accountability, because Trump. I don’t know which party is going to win in November, but it feels like we all lost a lot in the Trump era.
"I don’t know which party is going to win in November, but it feels like we all lost a lot in the Trump era." Bingo
Meh. When the federal government defaults on the debt, we'll look back to these times with fondness.
We won't default, we'll just run a 4 years or 10% inflation and cut the existing debt in half.
That sounds great; $5 gasoline.
More like $10 gasoline. Median wage will be 150k, Happy meal will cost $25.
It will be great.
The talk of the 25th Amendment I've seen recently mostly ignores that it's a high bar if the president (or, say, his crackhead son and/or "doctor" wife) is able to send a letter to Congress saying, "Nope, I'm fine." In that event, the barrier to removal of the president's powers is higher than for impeachment.
Yes the 25th Amendment is a total hot mess and would be really hard to make work at all unless POTUS is in a coma or something.
Like a lot of stuff in the Constitution it's not well designed!
The 25th wasn't written for someone like Biden.
It wasn't well written at all.
Father's Day by John Calvin Batchelor is a great (and underrated) novel built around the flaws in the 25th (a president steps aside to deal with depression, announces he's cured and coming back, and the VP says "no you aren't"). Highly recommended.
I think if his cabinet, including the VP, invoke the 25th amendment, then the house will follow suit even if Biden sends the letter. It's choosing a replacement VP that is going to a cluster in that situation, especially if the Senate is close.
It's probably harder than it was when Ford was chosen, but not impossible. I can see the Democratic caucus reaching consensus on that if needed.
Democratic caucus yes, but if Biden is the president and Republicans control either the house or senate, I suspect they will demand a large voice in the selection of the new VP.
I suppose we could end up without one in that situation.
The idea of Joe still being in office next year is kind of hard to imagine. He seems entirely out of touch with anyone beyond the Democratic base, which is nowhere near as big as he thinks. There are a lot of people who will vote for anyone rather than Trump, but not enough.
I disagree with this article's conclusion and implications for Democrats. I lived through the UK and part of the Australian transition discussed. My conclusion from those experiences is that there is nothing special about leadership transition campaigns. Just like a regular campaign, you need to project competence and offer solutions to voters' top priorities.
Johnson took the Tories went from a hung parliament under May to a large majority. How?
1) He offered a solution to the country's #1 policy problem , which May had clearly failed to
2) May ran an awful campaign in '17 with a big policy idea so bad she didn't just withdraw it, she pretended she hadn't proposed it
3) In between the two elections, Labour got embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal and its leader (Corbyn) was seen to some extent to have sided with Russia when it murdered two people on British soil in 2018.
So, there were major changes that helped the Tories and they did much better. Nothing special.
The Gillard/Rudd mess ended in a big defeat for Labour in 2013. The two major items I recall from that election were:
1) Labour never united behind a leader. They admitted afterwards that political journalists spent those years getting incoming calls from the Labour factions briefing against each other. While they were in government. Embarrassing.
2) Labour put in place an unpopular carbon tax while kinda pretending that they hadn't by changing its name (to carbon price). Their opponents ran on "Axe the tax".
So again, nothing special. Labour were a mess and had an unpopular policy and they lost.
The personnel of the Democratic party's leadership is not a topic I follow closely. But in the last few weeks I've heard and read that when asked, voters say their #1 problem with Biden isn't policy, it's age. There's also polling showing him running behind virtually every Democratic senate candidate. So that suggests Democrats will get a big boost from making a change, because it will alleviate a major voter concern. They will still need to run a good campaign because the last few weeks has been a fiasco that has undermined their credibility. So it's not a magic wand. But the opportunity to suddenly fix a voter pain-point is there and Democrats should be clear-eyed about that.
Can't agree with this enough. Significant majority of the country would rather not go through the Trump years again...they saw them as exhausting. Just nominate someone who is not "old as _____." (And I'm closer to Biden's age than I am to Milan's.....wait, it's real close....by months.)
More worrying, I think, is that a significant portion of voters found the Trump years perfectly fine, the economy improving (basically on the same trajectory it had under Obama) up until the pandemic hit. These people blame Biden for everything that has gone wrong since 2021, and think Trump can bring back the "before" times. The trouble is, Trump hardly did anything besides toilet-tweet the first time around, for his second term he is far better organized and would do far more damage.
I agree here - larger forces
The better Australian example is Labor replacing Bill Hayden with Bob Hawke *3 weeks* prior to the 83 election. Labor won comfortably, but the Australia was in pretty bad shape at the time and the Liberal party were taking the blame. As Hayden put it, "a drover's dog could lead the Labor Party to victory, the way the country is".
My pure speculation is that anyone who is significantly younger than Biden would beat Trump. As all of a sudden Trump is clearly too old; and, related, the race becomes clearly about Trump's negatives. Easy peasy. (Like many middle-aged Americans I look at my parents -- roughly the same age as Biden....no, they can't do the job as president). Heck my business partner (about the same age as Trump)....I humor him...but he shouldn't be making decisions anymore.
I texted about this with a close friend yesterday who is well-known in D-politics (most of you would know this person's name)....the response I got is that pretty much everyone on the Hill agrees offline...anyone can beat Trump. They just have to be younge.r
"Democrats were able to have an actual primary to replace [LBJ]." Except that Humphrey didn't win a single primary.
They were still able to have the primary - LBJ obviously didn’t know when he bowed out of the race that the winner of the race would be assassinated before he could be nominated.
A very good point. It would have been simpler to have said “times were different” in those with actual bosses, with big up for grabs states, and the slices both ways George Wallace phenomenon.
This actually reinforces the “we’re not in Kansas” moment of our current situation. People actually have to recognize that it’s hard to cross a gaping chasm without at some point taking a big time risk.
Then maybe Democrats need to remember some words that were also first heard in 1968: "Risk is our business!"
Johnson's slogan, which I heard relentlessly in the 2019 election campaign was not "deliver on Brexit" but "Get Brexit Done", usually pronounced as if there were full stops after each word.
(Also "fledging" should probably be "floundering")
Definitely true that’s probably the better slogan to cite. I was citing a campaign speech where he promised to deliver on brexit.
Boris/Tories 2019 messaging was great. Simple, short, to the point. “Get Brexit done. Fix the NHS. 10,000 new police.”
I was wondering about “fledgling”
Yeah, floundering or flailing would be the correct choice. Dems can sometimes act like they were born yesterday but they are a midterm away from the party bicentennial.
thanks for a great article!
My husband and I both had careers in IT. Although he is 80 & I am 82, we actively keep up with advances and challenges in the World. Biden appears to only focus on the past. A younger charismatic leader would have a stronger chance of beating Trump! We believe that leader would also be quicker to comprehend the pluses and minuses of AI and how to respond to the growing effects of warming oceans. In reviewing the most recent elections, we note that voters are choosing moderate candidates.
Younger people don’t have any significant future-forward ideas, either.
The entire idea of having a clear, compelling agenda focused on the future was enabled by disparities between science, engineering, and the economy. It meant we had a stock of major projects just waiting for technical advance or a budget that made them plausible.
But we’ve done those now, honestly. Everything going forward is going to be much more marginal or much less compelling.
Just imagining Hunter Biden screaming “I am the oldest boy!” At Joe Biden’s cabinet is giving me heart palpitations.
It should be getting you a ride to the ER for a psych evaluation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna159975
It's becoming harder and harder to draw clear lines between Trump and Biden. Geez. What poor and delusional judgement.
Those are political meetings, not governance meetings. And there’s nothing wrong with his lawyer-trained son sitting in. He’s an addict, not an idiot.
oh he's an idiot.. speaking as a trained lawyer.
Hunter Biden is not a good guy and he is an idiot. His father allowing him this close absolutely is a problem. He has a 5 year old daughter her has never held. I’m a dad with a daughter, something is deeply broken with a man that behaves that way.
I can forgive addiction, I have plenty of experience with it in my own family.
This is all very interesting but the decision for Biden should be as simple as: take the high variance choice when you have the lower expected outcome.
He's losing and the age thing means he has no chance to pick up votes. Even Dems are getting queasy about him having a second term.
Pull the goalie!! :-)
Again we need more non-Biden stuff so here's one:
Speaking "things to be learned from peer countries" American unions sometimes seem to follow a strange model....https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/staff-who-disrupted-neas-assembly-will-be-locked-out-of-work/2024/07 (the union representing the staff of the NEA teachers union is on strike against the union)
Or closer to my neck of the woods, seven months of bargaining leads to....an indefinite strike against the park board: https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/07/12/minneapolis-parks-board-and-union-dig-in-for-protracted-strike-and-other-labor-news/ This raises many questions, like should I yell "SCAB!" and kids who use the jungle gym? Is using outdoor basketball courts "crossing the picket line" or subverting management by liberating their capital for the masses?
To be more specific, American *public sector* unions make odd choices. Private sector unions have a much stronger adversary, so they have to be much more shrewd to survive.
Worth noting Rudd knifed Gillard back before the 2013 Federal Election (where Labor was defeated by the Liberals)
Regarding Britain, Starmer won a stonking majority in 2024 with 33.7% of the vote. Corbyn lost in 2019 with 32.2% of the vote. The story is much more about highly focused targeting of swing voters in swing states - sorry, seats. I suppose that's one possible definition of 'political mainstream' but I don't think that was what Ben was actually trying to get at...
I don’t think this is about the party targeting voters - it’s about voters being smart as they move left or right with their votes. Given the current shape of the districts, it seems that Labour gets about 33% regardless of whether the electorate moves left or right. But if the electorate moves left, then Labour wins more in Labour-Tory marginals and loses votes in Labour-left marginals.
They're not actually the same districts as in 2019. There may be something to that... certainly there was more tactical voting and vote swaps, which Starmer being seen as 'more acceptable' to moderate LD voters may have contributed to.
The collapse of the SNP does to various scandals will certainly have contributed, especially with it disrupting their preparations for a (potential) snap election that actually happened.
Plus the, hmm, acceptability of Starmer even to conservatives allowed many of them to vote Reform instead... though the defenestrated Truss premiership will also have contributed to a 'Sunak's not really a conservative' vote.
A party that got 80% of the vote in Massachusetts and California but lost by 25 in the Great Lakes states (this is 2019 Labour) is "less mainstream" than a party that gets 52% in the Great Lakes states, 65% in Massachusetts, and 43% in Texas.
So I think using mainstream in this way is still accruate
How did they do in the straight popular vote standings in each case?
Similar, but among moderate voters Labour 2024 did much better hence Mainstream
Thanks for that!
To be a little picky, are we defining 'mainstream' voters as swing voters in swing seats (here I lay a trap for you, because swing or 'marginal' seats exist between lab-con, lib-lab, lib-con, and now grn-lab, rfm-lab, rfm-con, lib-grn as well, just to hit the main ones, and of course those 'edges' exist in places all over the political landscape. There are even multiway marginals).
Or are we purely defining 'mainstream' as 'true centre' or '+' shaped on the political compass?
This may be overly picky - it looks like labour won with both groups.
https://www.focaldata.com/blog/how-britain-voted-2024
“While polling shows that this scenario is likely preferential to our current one….” The polls are interesting now and I think they need to settle. The message is ambiguous as best, but there is NO clear “dump Biden” message. We should all admit what we don’t know and look deeper and think harder.
What would a winning Biden campaign look like right now? I can easily image different successful scenarios. All require stopping the panic and the ultimatums and focusing on what we know.
Donald Trump must be the primary focus of the media and the voters between now and Nov. His new support comes from people who don’t remember his term. We have to remind them. That’s not hard.
If the remaining four months are about the Dems — even a triumphant convention with a conclusion written by Sorkin — we just are not going to win. Donald Trump is an incumbent. He’s an insurrection’s. He’s a liar, a con, a rapist and an unhealthy blob of a person. He was behind the biggest theft of civil liberties in our history. He stands for a revamping of the constitution that will leave every single person in peril.
It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???
Focus people, focus.
If Biden were 15, 20 points down not the polls I’d say drastic, risky measures were called for. We’d have nothing to lose.
But he’s not. He’s led in two solid polls in the last couple days. He’s down with men and up with women. And there are undecideds who will NEVER vote for Trump. Biden can win them back if he reminds them of the cost of not voting or going 3rd party.
This is NOT defcon 1 after all. Look at the polls and stop the panic and laser focus on Trump.
"It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???"
This is sort of the point that the Biden-Step-Aside people are trying to make. Trump is easy to attack and Biden often struggles to do so. At the debate he had a prime opportunity to attack Trump and instead lost the debate and embarrassed himself.
Both Harris and Pete and other Dems have been able to deliver Anti-Trump talking points far more clearly than Biden has.
"If Biden were 15, 20 points down not the polls I’d say drastic, risky measures were called for."
It seems pretty unlikely that any presidential candidate would be that far down in the polls in such polarized times.
>Trump is easy to attack and Biden often struggles to do so.<
I have a related take: if we play it right, the debate wasn't a debacle but an opportunity. The race had calcified into a grim-looking affair months ago if you were paying attention.
Democrats have been gifted with a plausible, eminently justifiable reason to assemble a different, more competitive ticket. Because even before the debate, the honest truth is they were very likely headed for a loss of the White House.
"It’s not a hard case to make. Why would we give up the opportunity to do that???"
Has this case ever _stopped_ being made? Who is persuadable and _doesn't_ know how bad Trump is? They may have decided a bad Trump is still ok because of inflation, or immigration, or something like that. But I just don't know that there's much juice left to squeeze on the "Trump is bad" front, as much as I may personally agree Trump is really, really bad.
the thing is, for most people, the things that they might see Trump as bad at don't effect them personally (or they don't think they will). at this point it's about eliminating Trump alternative negatives. Trump's are already priced in.
"What would a winning Biden campaign look like right now?" I dunno, but the actual campaign the Dems need is a super energetic one with say multiple events a day etc. But it's pretty clear that Biden isn't capable of that anymore and so the campaign we are going to get is a classic "Rose Garden Strategy" where he does a few media events a week (see how after his big presser this week he's going to Delaware to take the weekend off).
This is all well and good when you are up by a lot like say Reagan in 84' or Nixon in 72' but but that's not where we are at and Matt et al's point is that unless that changes Trump is probably going to win.
A winning Biden campaign would probably have to involve a combination of a lot things. Biden would have to dramatically increase the cadence of his public appearances, and do so without making mistakes worse than the typical "Biden" gaffes we saw in 2020. It would require the party to re-unite behind him, once it's clear that he's not stepping down. It would require Biden to do dramatically better in the second debate. And, it would require Trump to make mistakes. For example, if the second debate shows Biden as the lucid one and Trump as the rambling one, that would go a long way.
Not saying that any of this is super-likely, or what Biden needs to do still being within his capabilities. But, it's least plausible.
Well yes this the crux of the debate Matt, and "Team Coconut" are saying "Biden isn't capable of doing these sorts of things anymore" and asking if he is or isn't is probably the most helpful way to think about it.
Yes. A campaign revamp. I suspect the Biden campaign knows that. He’s not goring to leave when he’s leading in some polls, not happening. But the elites and panic people have some leverage right now. Insist on the cognitive work up. And channel all the firepower and energy and talent on the party that is currently wringing its hands into coming up with a campaign strategy that maximizes Biden’s strengths and balances his limitations with the other talent in the party. Once the cognitive evaluation is done, publicized, maybe a press conf with the (independent) doc, Biden has earned the right to say “ I gave you what you asked for. I need to beat Trump now and I’m done talking about my cognitive capacity. I’m old, my back hurts, I don’t manage the stutter as well as I did. I’m still a great president with a great record and a clean bill of health and I defy Donald Trump to out match me on any of those grounds. He can’t. Where’s his current cognitive test. How are the sharks biting, Donald? Let’s get to work!”
So, let’s get to work. This handwringing and panicking is making me queasy.
I would argue that Biden’s greatest strength in terms of challenging Trump is now neutralized…namely honesty. It will be difficult to sell low info independents on the fact that Biden is more honest after hiding in this condition (or at least appearing to) for months/years. That is a liability that many alternatives would not have.
He's absolutely not leading in any poll that anyone thinks is worth the paper it's printed on.
The swing state numbers look especially grim. And NH, and (gulp) Minnesota appear to be in play.
When Biden goes down in a landslide Christine will post that no one could have beaten him.
Ad hominem attacks on new users isn't a good look
I have no idea who is new.
Okay, ad hominem attacks are rude, no matter who they are against.
You don’t like Marist? Hmm. ABC shows a dead heat, how about that? Yes, people want him to go. All they hear is hysteria as promises of something better out there. But the polls say they are sticking with him, and this likely to be his lowest point. Little focus on Trumps lies, total focus on Joe’s debate debacle and the lack of faith of his party. And he’s still hanging in there poll wise. Check out 538.
I know there are bad state polls and I’m not saying there is no work to be done. I think I made that pretty clear. But this guy can still win if people get behind him with the least political cost.
That is what I’m saying. We. Must. Stop. Maga.
>But this guy can still win if people get behind him<
That's tautological: yes, if Biden can get enough people to vote for him, he will win!
Marist has historically been very Dem friendly as I understand it. Rasmussen also released a poll yesterday. Has Trump up by six, I think. Now, Rasmussen is historically very pro-GOP—no doubt about it. But when you look at those two polls in tandem, they suggest Trump is leading by a good 3+ points. Which is the range this race seems to have settled into (especially in the swing states).
Biden's behind. That need not be fatal if there's an obvious path to overcome Trump's lead. But what is that path? I'm not seeing it absent a ticket change.
I can imagine a path but no one cares what a random political scientist thinks and I’m sure there are better ideas out there than mine. But if all the star power in the party spent a week coming up with strategies to save Biden’s candidacy (and yes, it needs bold thinking and getting out of the Biden campaign’s comfort zone for sure) instead of dreaming about their ideal tickets as if we were perched at the beginning of a normal primary season, we’d have a WAY better idea of the options we face and could decide if we are at the level of disaster that requires then hailest of all Hail Marys, which is what switching candidates 4 months out amounts to. We should take very seriously ALL the options.
I just wish every one would remember — the only way we win this — no matter who the nominee ends up being, is to keep the nation’s and thus the media’s attention solely focused on Trump for the maximum period of time. There is not much disagreement about that.
It won’t happen if the Democrats are continuing to fight with each other into the fall and then the media has a new shiny candidate to vet. We can’t afford it.
>the only way we win this — no matter who the nominee ends up being, is to keep the nation’s and thus the media’s attention solely focused on Trump for the maximum period of time.<
Earned media—which I agree is a critical element for winning political contests—is probably Joe Biden's single biggest weakness as a candidate.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1811812353144684855