A key point of difference with the Rudd-to-Gillard switch in 2010 was that Rudd remained in Parliament and was a highly visible sore point for Labor during the campaign (and next term of Parliament). I'm guessing that Biden would be more magnanimous if he was forced to stand down.
The Liberal Party changed leaders twice shortly before elections during its period of Government in 2013-2022. First was from the right-wing Tony Abbott to the centrist neo-liberal Malcolm Turnbull (in 2015), then from Turnbull to the centre-right Scott Morrison (in 2018). Both switches were more successful. Abbott and Turnbull were each desperately unpopular headed for defeat in 2016 and 2019 (respectively), and their successors proved able to turn around their electoral fortunes.
Another data point is the Labor party's switch from Bob Hawke to Paul Keating in December 1991 (admittedly this was well over a year before the March 1993 election). Hawke remained relatively personally popular in the electorate, and had won four elections in a row. But the party was concerned with his inability to make headway against a revitalised Liberal Party. Again, the switch proved successful and Keating won an improbably victory in early 1993.
Overall, it's been quite mixed but has probably proven slightly more successful than not.
I know this is late, but just wanted to say (I’m sure others have as well) that this may be a case where American exceptionalism is real. I don’t think the examples given really do much to elucidate a pretty unique situation, which is not based on the popularity of the party but the popularity of the individual candidate, which tends to be more important than party in our elections.
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.
Actually if you go back a little further in Australian history, in 1983 the Labor party in opposition replaced their then candidate for PM, Bill Hayden, with Bob Hawke just one month before the election. Hawke went on to win not only that election but the following three, with Labor retaining power for 13 years total.
"While polling shows that this scenario is likely preferential to our current one, it is still a rather perilous — and unprecedented — moment in American politics"
People throw out the word "unprecedented" far too much and it is often not accurate. Off the top of my head, at least three US Presidents declined to run for re-election after a first term: George Washington, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson (the latter two in large part due to poor polling and unpopularity). The opposing party won the Presidency in the cases of both Truman and Johnson, although the escalating Cold War, Vietnam, and violent political climate make it hard to draw direct comparisons to our current moment.
Is Biden stepping down for a younger leader from his party risky? Oh hell yes.
Is it unprecedented? No.
What IS unprecedented is having a nominee for President who will be 82 the month of the election and 86 at the close of his second term.
Would I rather go down swinging with a chance than a near-certain defeat with Biden? Absolutely.
"The Democratic party is not unpopular"....it also isn't popular. When public estimation of the party is "meh" you'r not winning against a slightly less popular party that is fired up as hell.
I know age isn't the only electoral problem that Biden has. But I don't think much of the electorate sees an octogenarian (who now seems his age) as a symbol of "turning things around." In this way, the age is not just a single-issue drag on his numbers. In 2020 he was probably above replacement-level as a candidate and in 2024 he's now below, despite the incumbency advantage. None of this is unusual in the sports world; it's just not common in the political world.
Biden clearly doesn't have what it takes to be president and campaign at the same time so he's gotta drop one or both jobs.
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.
What should terrify everyone (but appears to go unnoticed) is how much smarter and disciplined of a campaign Trump is running this time. Now translate that to him in office.
He wants to win *much* more badly than he did in 2016, given his massive legal troubles, and the broad immunities and protections he'd again enjoy as POTUS. So he's listening to sane advisers. And proceeding methodically and calmly.
(He wanted to win in 2020, too, of course, but I think he was just overwhelmed by the job and by the state of the country, and running a disciplined campaign was beyond his exhausted capacities).
If somehow Democrats manage to pry the nomination from Biden's hands, I'd almost be tempted to say Harris should put Whitmer on the ticket. Trump wouldn't know what hit him.
I'd almost agree...but I think you need a male on the ticket (before people jump on that...no one will vote against the ticket because it has a male...some people will if it doesn't have a male...so you need a male).
Well, I also used the word "almost" for similar reasons. Beshear is an obvious choice (really impressive what he's been able to achieve down there). And Cooper maybe puts NC in play if the race got reset. But still, sometimes fortunes favors the bold. It would certainly be an audacious, compelling ticket.
A week ago, I would say that Biden definitely needs to step down, but now I'm less sure. Each day, more and more polls are coming in, and the difference between Biden vs. Trump and anybody else vs. Trump is, to put it frankly, just statistical polling noise. At the same time, the most recent polls actually seem to be showing a bit of a rebound for Biden, suggesting that a lot of his post-debate losses may actually prove temporary.
To be clear, Biden is definitely losing at this point, and it would take a lot of things going right to turn it around. But it's at least plausible (for instance, Biden winning the 2nd debate in September would go a long way), and switching nominees is definitely not a path without risk. For instance, I could imagine Harris or whoever else takes over getting a short-term polling bump that fades by election day, as voters start learning more about them and the Republican attack ads start landing, to the point where they don't actually end up doing any better than Biden would do. It's really hard to predict.
Your points aren't wrong. But we need a deus ex machina either way (Biden all of a sudden coming alive as in your second paragraph counts)...I'd rather create the opportunity for one.
"fledging" -> "flagging" (presumably not fledgling or failing, but possibly flailing)
Three caveats on the Australian examples:
A key point of difference with the Rudd-to-Gillard switch in 2010 was that Rudd remained in Parliament and was a highly visible sore point for Labor during the campaign (and next term of Parliament). I'm guessing that Biden would be more magnanimous if he was forced to stand down.
The Liberal Party changed leaders twice shortly before elections during its period of Government in 2013-2022. First was from the right-wing Tony Abbott to the centrist neo-liberal Malcolm Turnbull (in 2015), then from Turnbull to the centre-right Scott Morrison (in 2018). Both switches were more successful. Abbott and Turnbull were each desperately unpopular headed for defeat in 2016 and 2019 (respectively), and their successors proved able to turn around their electoral fortunes.
Another data point is the Labor party's switch from Bob Hawke to Paul Keating in December 1991 (admittedly this was well over a year before the March 1993 election). Hawke remained relatively personally popular in the electorate, and had won four elections in a row. But the party was concerned with his inability to make headway against a revitalised Liberal Party. Again, the switch proved successful and Keating won an improbably victory in early 1993.
Overall, it's been quite mixed but has probably proven slightly more successful than not.
I know this is late, but just wanted to say (I’m sure others have as well) that this may be a case where American exceptionalism is real. I don’t think the examples given really do much to elucidate a pretty unique situation, which is not based on the popularity of the party but the popularity of the individual candidate, which tends to be more important than party in our elections.
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!! :-)
>normanrockwell.jpg
I think political assassinations are bad
thanks for a great article!
Actually if you go back a little further in Australian history, in 1983 the Labor party in opposition replaced their then candidate for PM, Bill Hayden, with Bob Hawke just one month before the election. Hawke went on to win not only that election but the following three, with Labor retaining power for 13 years total.
"While polling shows that this scenario is likely preferential to our current one, it is still a rather perilous — and unprecedented — moment in American politics"
People throw out the word "unprecedented" far too much and it is often not accurate. Off the top of my head, at least three US Presidents declined to run for re-election after a first term: George Washington, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson (the latter two in large part due to poor polling and unpopularity). The opposing party won the Presidency in the cases of both Truman and Johnson, although the escalating Cold War, Vietnam, and violent political climate make it hard to draw direct comparisons to our current moment.
Is Biden stepping down for a younger leader from his party risky? Oh hell yes.
Is it unprecedented? No.
What IS unprecedented is having a nominee for President who will be 82 the month of the election and 86 at the close of his second term.
Would I rather go down swinging with a chance than a near-certain defeat with Biden? Absolutely.
"The Democratic party is not unpopular"....it also isn't popular. When public estimation of the party is "meh" you'r not winning against a slightly less popular party that is fired up as hell.
I know age isn't the only electoral problem that Biden has. But I don't think much of the electorate sees an octogenarian (who now seems his age) as a symbol of "turning things around." In this way, the age is not just a single-issue drag on his numbers. In 2020 he was probably above replacement-level as a candidate and in 2024 he's now below, despite the incumbency advantage. None of this is unusual in the sports world; it's just not common in the political world.
Biden clearly doesn't have what it takes to be president and campaign at the same time so he's gotta drop one or both jobs.
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.
What should terrify everyone (but appears to go unnoticed) is how much smarter and disciplined of a campaign Trump is running this time. Now translate that to him in office.
Totally.
He wants to win *much* more badly than he did in 2016, given his massive legal troubles, and the broad immunities and protections he'd again enjoy as POTUS. So he's listening to sane advisers. And proceeding methodically and calmly.
(He wanted to win in 2020, too, of course, but I think he was just overwhelmed by the job and by the state of the country, and running a disciplined campaign was beyond his exhausted capacities).
Clip of Whitmer mixing it up on CNN. Damn, she's good. And that non-elitist, Great Lakes accent freakin rocks:
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1811237180536164679
If somehow Democrats manage to pry the nomination from Biden's hands, I'd almost be tempted to say Harris should put Whitmer on the ticket. Trump wouldn't know what hit him.
"...Great Lakes accent.."
You betcha!
I'd almost agree...but I think you need a male on the ticket (before people jump on that...no one will vote against the ticket because it has a male...some people will if it doesn't have a male...so you need a male).
Were there people who only voted for Hillary b/c Tim Kaine was her running mate?
Probably
Well, I also used the word "almost" for similar reasons. Beshear is an obvious choice (really impressive what he's been able to achieve down there). And Cooper maybe puts NC in play if the race got reset. But still, sometimes fortunes favors the bold. It would certainly be an audacious, compelling ticket.
Worth noting Rudd knifed Gillard back before the 2013 Federal Election (where Labor was defeated by the Liberals)
A week ago, I would say that Biden definitely needs to step down, but now I'm less sure. Each day, more and more polls are coming in, and the difference between Biden vs. Trump and anybody else vs. Trump is, to put it frankly, just statistical polling noise. At the same time, the most recent polls actually seem to be showing a bit of a rebound for Biden, suggesting that a lot of his post-debate losses may actually prove temporary.
To be clear, Biden is definitely losing at this point, and it would take a lot of things going right to turn it around. But it's at least plausible (for instance, Biden winning the 2nd debate in September would go a long way), and switching nominees is definitely not a path without risk. For instance, I could imagine Harris or whoever else takes over getting a short-term polling bump that fades by election day, as voters start learning more about them and the Republican attack ads start landing, to the point where they don't actually end up doing any better than Biden would do. It's really hard to predict.
Your points aren't wrong. But we need a deus ex machina either way (Biden all of a sudden coming alive as in your second paragraph counts)...I'd rather create the opportunity for one.
Any bets on Trump's running mate? I'll go first: I think he goes with Rubio.
All signs seem to be pointing towards JD Vance. That's my guess.
For sure my take is contrarian. I guess I'm telegraphing which of the three finalists I would go with If I were Donald Trump.