Today was a phenomenal show of the unity (except for the Obamas) I think Democrats have been sorely missing. However, after being bolstered and nourished by today’s news shows I’m going to return to being very selective about what I read and watch. The press and the GOPtiles will continue their BS and rabble-rousing and I’ll focus on the little bit I can do to help Kamala trounce Trump.
My *guess* is that the Obamas have been consciously absent, to avoid the impression of a set-up deal, to allow Kamala Harris to "earn" the support on her own, etc. (Same for Pelosi, and until just hours ago Jeffries.)
I will be amazed if they're not all-in, 110%, very soon.
I've always liked Whitmer, but an all-woman ticket seems a bridge too far. Ditto female AND Jewish (Shapiro). Beshear got elected twice in a Red state and Kelly is an uber-macho former pilot and astronaut. I think either of those would add the most to a ticket that increasingly looks like it'll be headed by Harris.
Nobody ticks off more boxes. And BTW, when I said I signed up because I've always liked your work, I should add that goes at least as far back as "The Fifty-First State?" One of the most prescient pieces written about the Iraq invasion during the run-up to it.
There are many circumstances where I look back and say, "Well, I was wrong about XXX." This is a circumstance where I can say, "Too bad I was right about this."
I agree, Jim. It amazes me that so many commentators here are pursuing the “enambler” line. I doubt it will last because now Trump is the older candidate with cognitive issues.
Well done, Jim, w/ double that for all the commentary that, as usual, runs the gamut in a respectful yet realistic manner. I'll just add three things that I think are unsaid:
1) The French people set the stage for the country to the surprise of many, but Macron and his residual hypercentrist and technocratic base are resisting the clear shift away from retrograde politics. We face both questions at the same time in November and beyond (one of the comments to which I replied inspired this...)
2) I think Joe Biden's initial recusal statement was an elegant and intimate gesture as reflected by his use of his personal stationary (h/t Matt Glassman and fwiw, I am glad the President did not do it via leaks or so-called "social media"...).
3) Assuming Kamala Harris is the nominee, I do not really care who is asked to be the VP... but I like Mark Kelly because of his profile (Arizona, astronaut, military service, gun safety, etc.).
While the cross-party fantasies don't make much sense because the likely individuals are not close to the center of the Democratic Party, I do hope the Democrats can enhance the image of a full spectrum ideological platform that respects those on the extremes on any given issue who reciprocate with respect for the substantial majorities who are not so doctrinaire or dogmatic (read: abortion, immigration, foreign policy, etc.).
1) The media loves drama. The narrative on Saturday: Democrats in disarray; Trump survives assassination attempt. Is he unstoppable? Sunday: Republicans in disarray. Democrats uniting; Biden’s selflessness and his presidency lauded. Campaign narrative shifts (said without irony).
2) Where was I when I heard the news? I’m in Flagstaff, AZ, and coincidentally on Sunday morning I was at a local Democratic Party table at the Farmers Market (notably staffed by 70-somethings - thereby comes a tale). They told my wife and I; they had just heard.
3) When I heard the news I was overcome with emotion. I felt he needed to make this decision but was surprised by how it affected me. I’m a 71 year old Dad and Biden’s devotion to his family has always moved me deeply (even as I write these words). His devotion to country is something I hope all Americans recognize and feel themselves. Nobody should need the media to recognize the importance of what Biden has done or to see the contrast with Trump.
JF, thanks again for being the adult in the room. Your thoughtful commentary again equals real leadership, although that may well not be your motivation. There is plenty to think about and plenty to do. As Joe said, there is nothing we can't do if we do it together.
Living in London, I was surprised to hear the BBC repeat the Republican insinuations about Harris and others being “enablers” of Biden and concealing his mental state from the public. As you say and as we both know, handling the ageing process is a delicate issue, and it took the disastrous debate to jumpstart this passage of the baton or, if you will, car keys.
Bruce, thanks. On this side of the water as well this seems to be the line that a flummoxed GOP message-team has hit upon overnight. (Immediately after the news broke, the initial version of the GOP response boiled down to: "Hey, that's NO FAIR!!)
I'm sure "enabling" will remain part of the ongoing message. But I also assume that Harris (with the other younger-Dems team) will be agile enough to turn it around and say: " 'Enabling'? You really want to talk about ENABLING someone who is unit for office???"
Yes, the whole process of aging is unvarying in its eventual outcome, and nearly inescapable in the difficult along-the-way decisions it means. But of course it is widely variable person by person and moment by moment. As I've mentioned here, Deb's mom was near the peak of her piano-playing ability even past age 100. Then when she started to fail, it was very sudden. By contrast, my own mother went to sleep one evening after a "normal" day while in her 70s, and just never woke up. Based on his public performances, Biden was cruising along (though stiff in gait) until a few months ago. Then things seemed to go wrong quickly.
Admiration to Biden himself for finally facing and making the world's hardest version of "taking away the keys."
Two final points that didn't seem to get much attention today. 1. Biden's stated reason for stepping down: to focus on his responsibilities as president. That might read as a cover for someone who was essentially forced out, but I believe that's his intention, to do as much as possible to "finish the job."
2. A central theme of the Trump campaign has been that we shouldn't have an old, addled, incoherent person in charge of our country. Well that's exactly who the Republican nominee is. As I write this we're just days past Trump's rambling speech (if you could call it that) which went on for more than 90 minutes, putting most of those in attendance to sleep. And Trump himself fell asleep during his own convention, and during his trial. The Repubs will drop the age issue but the Dems shouldn't - specifically they should focus on competence and achievement.
No, no, no on immediately annointing Kamala. While I'll certainly support her if she's the.nominee, we absolutely need to spend the time between now and the convention figuring out who the best candidate to win the presidency. If that proves to be Harris, great. But there is little evidence to suggest that she is and lots of evidence to suggest she isn't.
I was actually a Harris supporter in 2019. I'm from the Bay Area, thought she was a good DA and AG, did reasonably well as a senator, and I liked the fact that she is married to a Jewish guy. But then she ran away from her record as DA, proved to be a horrible candidate who repelled rather than attracted support, and her campaign imploded. Then, in 2020 when she chosen to be VP (which I was happy about), she again proved to be a poor campaigner.
Why do we think someone who was outcampaigned by Sanders, Warren, Buttigeig, Yang, and Klobuchar is now the best nominee? The fact that she has now served four years as VP is not going to be persuasive to anyone who isn't going to vote Democratic no matter who is on the ticket. The people we need to persuade are the 5-10% of folks who are actually on the fence. There is literally no evidence that Harris will be effective at getting these folks to vote for her.
Now I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Maybe over the last four years Kamala has prepared herself to become a better candidate. But let her prove that over the next few weeks in a real process to win delegates support in a contest with other candidates. Not only will that demonstrate whether she actually has what it takes, but it will draw far more people's interest than simply appointing her.
As a party, the Democrats made an enormous mistake over the last year. In the interest of having a smooth campaign, the party ignored voters clear concerns over Biden's age and suppressed a real campaign in favor of coronating Biden. Fortunately, the debate came early enough to clearly reveal that Biden wasn't up to the challenge and there was time to shift to someone else.
Let's not repeat this mistake. Let's not ignore the evidence that Kamala is a terrible candidate in the same way we ignored the evidence that Joe was no longer capable of being an effective candidate. Let's do with Kamala what we should have done with Joe; force them to demonstrate that they are the right person for the job. We'll have to do it more quickly, but there is still time.
Thanks for laying out the case this fully. As is evident, I've come out on the other side. As you know, *every* step and decision in this process is a move into the unknown and a matter of risk-calculation (with imperfect information). To me it has seemed that the risks of further delay and churn were greater than the risks of saying: Let's go with the one who is already vice president, and who has already been on the ticket that swept this year's primaries.
But as you say, there are clear risks here too. One area where KH has less "downside risk" than others is that she's already been through the multi-year "public vetting" process, with hostile news stories and so on. Very few of the alternative candidates have yet been through that wringer.
The overnight coalescence around Harris suggests that this is very likely a moot discussion. Unless there is yet another surprise development, she is on track to be the nominee. As you say, that could be a rush to judgment. At least initially I'm seeing it as a sign of revitalization and eagerness to move forward and re-focus the campaign on what's wrong with Trump.
I'm afraid you're right that the discussion may be moot. But I'd really push you James to articulate why you are so confident that Kamala is the best pick that you'd simply annoint her the nominee and help circle the wagons to discourage anyone else from competing versus givng her and a few others the opportunity to make the case why they are the right choice. I'd really like you to
My opinion best way to evaluate whether someone is a good basketball player is to watch them play basketball. The best way to evaluate whether someone be a good candidate for President is to see watch them be a candidate for President. We've SEEN Kamala be a candidate for President. She was so bad that despite coming into the race with a ton of momentum, she campaigned so poorly she didn't even make it to the primaries. Why in the world would we simply trust that she has improved without any evidence? What in the world, other than hope and wishes, gives you confidence that she has improved? I live in the Bay Area, and I'm a big Warriors fan. I really hoped James Wiseman was a great draft pick, but at some point you have to look past their potential and focus on what they actually are. I'm deathly afraid that Kamala is the James Wiseman of nominees.
I get the desire to want to stop worrying about the nominee and start focusing on Trump. But it was that desire that got us into this mess in this first place. The desire to have a unified party against him made us ignore the fact that huge percentages of the electorate were telling us they were concerned that Biden was too old. And I confess that I was part of that group. And so I was willing to muddle through with him at the top of the ticket without a competitive primary. And I was even willing to justify in my him avoiding doing press conferences.
I still thought he had enough in tank to be at least a half decent campaigner. But when he was unwilling to do a Super Bowl interview, the alarm bells really began ringing for me. And so I was glad that the early debate was scheduled since I figured it would give us an escape hatch just in case.
So it's shocking and disappointing to me that we're using that escape hatch to select someone who has proven herself to be a terrible campaigner, simply because Biden committed himself to picking an African American woman as his VP four years ago.
Meanwhile James, I hope you're doing some soul searching. I feel like you've spent the last few months defending Biden and pushing back against the concerns about his age. And now you're part of the crew calling on us to rally around Kamala rather than calling for a process where she (and others) could prove themselves.
I get that you're doing so because you hate Trump and everything he stands for (or perhaps more accurately doesn't stand for). I'm fully with you on that. But the tragic irony is that this approach has actually made it much more likely Trump will win. What Trump needs to win is a badly flawed candidate. He got that in 2016 with Hilary, and it appears to me that he's getting it again with Kamala. And while I hope I'm proved wrong about that, I really wish folks like you had spent less time defending Biden and now Kamala and more time critically evaluating whether they were really the best choice to win in 2024.
The party would have come together regardless of the nominee. It isn't love for Kamala that is driving the surge in support for her; it's hatred of Trump. But that isn't going to be enough to get people who don't hate Trump to vote Democratic, and we need some of those folks. The useful thing we could have done is use these next weeks to evaluate whether Harris or someone else is the right person to do that. Instead, we've traded a short feeling of unity for the loss of an opportunity to actually pick the best candidate.
Thanks. I appreciate your laying it out in this detail.
Here is the clearest way I can explain my own evolving views:
**It's a matter of weighing risks, in conditions of uncertainty.**
By far the lowest-risk approach would be staying with Biden. If he had not revealed what appear to be (recent-onset?) serious problems, that obviously would have been the least-disruptive course. But the freeze-ups (multiple) at the debate really did change risk calculations. Followed by most (not all) of the subsequent appearances by him compounding those fears.
So once we enter the **by definition risky** terrain of moving away from the incumbent, what's the least-risky-seeming path to follow? Two weeks ago, I wrote (as you know) that there was still time for a "mini primary" fest. That's what I put in the proposed Biden speech.
It's two weeks later now. The convention is less than four weeks away. My risk-calculation, *now,* is that it would be riskier overall to open things up at this point than for the party to coalesce around Kamala Harris. Also, no one is forcing them to coalesce. The only one who is saying "Why not me?" is none other than Joe "No Longer a Democrat" Manchin.
You can disagree with the calculation, but it is driven in my case by THE CALENDAR—two weeks have been burned up, since the time I (like you) was on record in favor of a more open process—and the reality of risks in any approach. Two weeks is a LOT of time, at this stage.
I know you see things differently. In "showing my homework" fashion, this is why I think *AT THIS POINT* coalescing is less risky than all the other options.
First off James, thanks for the thoughtful response. Appreciate you engaging.
Second, to be a little presumptuous, I'd love to see you in the future write a longer piece (as a Substack post not a comment here) revisiting your thinking over the last couple of years to see whether there was anything you learned or wished you had done differently. I'd suggest that if you made a series of decisions that all seemed right at the time but helped lead to a situation where we have replaced an incumbent President three weeks before the convention with a candidate whose history as a campaigner has been mediocre to disastrously bad, it's worth re-examining one's priors to make sure you don't make the same mistakes again. I think Matt Yglesias's post here (https://www.slowboring.com/p/i-was-wrong-about-biden) is a great example of this genre. Would be interested to see your reflections.
Third, here’s my version of that post:
I confess that while I was worried about Biden’s age and the many people (including my wife, a physician) who expressed discomfort about it, I was content to see him go through the primary season essentially unchallenged. Partly, because I was generally pleased with Biden’s performance as President and partly because I worried about two things: 1) The potential for Biden to come out of a primary process still the nominee but damaged; and 2) the tendency for primaries to push candidates to the left, when I think the race will be won in the center.
And while I don’t necessarily think those feelings were wrong, looking back I’m mad at myself for not only being comfortable with him facing no primary challenge but also being comfortable with him essentially eschewing press conferences or other situations where he would have to ad lib. If we were giving him a pass on the primary season, it was all the more important to demand he fully engage as a candidate to see whether he still had what it takes. But I didn’t. I just went along.
Second, after Biden’s refusal to do a Super Bowl interview and Ezra Klein’s February piece in the Times that there were better options than Joe, I began to have truly serious concerns about whether could be an effective campaigner. But again, not sure what a better option would be or how to get there, I did nothing. Looking back, what I should have done is join the chorus of folks arguing that Biden should immediately begin to behave like an actual Presidential candidate by barnstorming the country, conducting rallies, and engaging in interviews at the level a serious presidential candidate would be doing. And if he wouldn’t take that advice, that should then be taken as evidence that he was diminished and no longer the right candidate.
Looking back, those are the things I wish I had done differently and plan to do so in the future if ever confronted by a similar type of situation.
Something for which I'd propose reflection on your side: This has always been a matter of assessing *relative risks,* in conditions of *uncertain information.*
By my calculations, the baseline risk of *any* challenge to an incumbent is very high.So a party does it only if they feel they have to. It's like saying "OK kids, we're getting a divorce" — you do it only when you think that this damaging course will be less damaging than the alternatives.
And in the "uncertain information" category, until maybe two or three months ago, we were in circumstances of Biden *continuing* to "overperform expectations," at all big events. As recently as his Morehouse and DDay presentations, he was *doing the job* well, as far as the public could observe.
So it's different from other decisions—and most like the analogy of a very destructive divorce. The historical evidence is *against* making this change unless you have to. And judging when "you have to" is complicated and hard to know at the time.
Thanks Jim for this. A very historic and moments occasion. I remember exactly where I was, and when it was, when I heard in 5th grade going to lunch that "the President has been killed". November 22, 1963. I was today with a bunch of friends if my 29- year old son, on our boat sailing near NYC. Earlier today, my query on the 29- year gang on the 2024 election, got this reaction: "it's over, we don't follow it anymore". Two hours later, one of the gang blurts out, "omg, Biden has stepped out". He switches the Bluetooth connection to our music speaker to give us the live TV news on the event. They listen to it for an hour!! . First report: "Stepping down, but no endorsement of Kamala". Then later, "now the endorsement". The 29 year olds then high-fived. I cheered. They then quizzed me on similar days like Nov 22 and 9/11 and 1968.
Exciting to see the explosion of excitement and energy that was missing when Biden, though we voted for him, was the nominee. And also wonderful to see all the accolades and love pouring in, reminding everyone constantly of how much the Biden administration has accomplished. Really energizing -- and effective!
Hadn't seen that Obama statement until just now. I thought it was appropriately generous (and detailed) about Biden's achievements, and about the difficulty and importance of his choice. As for next steps— maybe he didn't want to have it look as if the party big shots were dictating what would happen? Don't know. And it is amazing to think that not even 12 hours have passed.
I'm salivating at the thought of a debate between Kamala Harris and DT - I believe the contrast between what I expect to be her spirited performance vs DT's senescent carnival act would be a joy to behold - even better than that of Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, yes - this is a truly historic moment. Not entirely unanticipated, of course, and in many ways tragic, but definitely one which will go down in the history books, even more than LBJ in '68. And while I hate to dampen the hopes that are filling Democrats all over the US right now, let's not forget that even after LBJ removed himself from the contest, Democrats still lost the White House to "I'm not a crook."
We have an enormous job to do in the short time left before the election: we need to choose a candidate, flesh out a meaningful platform that is based on much more than "at least she's not DT," and we need to get all of our legal ducks in a row - because it is a given that DT & his henchmen will be out for blood, and will most assuredly find any and every legal loophole they can to contest the candidacy of whatever Democrat we choose.
Let's also remember with LBJ there was a wide spread discontent with his persistence in Vietnam that motivated, and arguably justified, a lot of acrimony among delegates and voters. Although many think the President has been too indulgent with Israel's war in Gaza, that sentiment has not risen to the levels of emotion surrounding Vietnam. Therefore I think there is reason to believe that the good will now being showered on the President will buoy the party in understanding that support for Harris is a morally unambiguous imperative.
Yes. I well remember the carnage (literal and metaphorical) in 1968—and *still* Humphrey came very very close, in popular-vote terms, to beating Nixon. And, as you know, that was a Democratic party *really* in disarray, and a far more turbulent domestic scene than now.
One of many blessings for the party, and the country, of the brave step Biden has taken is allowing (and motivating) people to focus on practical next-steps like those you lay out.
So glad Joe didn't drag this difficult decision out any longer. Time to suit up, folks, and help Kamala unify the Party and confront and take this fight to the reality-challenged Republican Party of today. A Trump-Harris debate and a Gretchen Whitmer V.P. pick debate opposite another Midwesterner, Vance, could produce two debates for the ages, at so many policy and ideological levels. A Beyonce/Taylor Swift collaboration the last night of the convention introduced by Joe and Jill, prior to Kamala's acceptance speech could spark the path to an historic Democratic leaning turnout among America's younger generations. How perfect that Joe endorsed a former prosecutor and wished her all the best in this historic moment.
A huge weight was lifted off of our collective shoulders today. I suspect people who put their thinking publicly on the line, like you James, helped him make this difficult decision. It bodes well for the President's legacy that should be celebrated by future generations for his term's achievements and not tarnished by a nagging obstinacy that viewed him as the only deliverer. Bravo! As to how this should proceed, it is in the best traditions that the party gets to parse out the selection of the best next candidate. The new candidate should not be dictated to by the previous leader. Biden's input is important and should not be dismissed, but it must be the absolutely best candidate available and should be selected by the entire convention. Loyalty is certainly a valued consideration. Diversity is also an important factor. Overwhelmingly, this candidate has to appeal to a large enough group of voters who will view them as a better, younger, more moral, more intelligent, fairer, more thoughtful, less radical and more centrally inclined choice than the opponent. I just pray that we, as a party, have enough cohesiveness and flexibility to get to this point and give this election the kind of choice that the country needs.
Thanks. Appreciate your kind words, and share your respect for how Biden worked through this.
As noted in the original post, my own sense is that the clock was running out for "mini primaries" etc. And it appears that there's momentum very rapidly building around Kamala Harris. But (in keeping with what you say) she has been careful to say that she wanted to "earn" the nomination.
Terrific writing and perspective, Jim. Thank you!
Today was a phenomenal show of the unity (except for the Obamas) I think Democrats have been sorely missing. However, after being bolstered and nourished by today’s news shows I’m going to return to being very selective about what I read and watch. The press and the GOPtiles will continue their BS and rabble-rousing and I’ll focus on the little bit I can do to help Kamala trounce Trump.
Phil, thank you.
My *guess* is that the Obamas have been consciously absent, to avoid the impression of a set-up deal, to allow Kamala Harris to "earn" the support on her own, etc. (Same for Pelosi, and until just hours ago Jeffries.)
I will be amazed if they're not all-in, 110%, very soon.
I've always liked Whitmer, but an all-woman ticket seems a bridge too far. Ditto female AND Jewish (Shapiro). Beshear got elected twice in a Red state and Kelly is an uber-macho former pilot and astronaut. I think either of those would add the most to a ticket that increasingly looks like it'll be headed by Harris.
The more I think about this, the better Mark Kelly seems. (Lots of good choices, but really the *only* minus in his case is not being a governor.)
Nobody ticks off more boxes. And BTW, when I said I signed up because I've always liked your work, I should add that goes at least as far back as "The Fifty-First State?" One of the most prescient pieces written about the Iraq invasion during the run-up to it.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
There are many circumstances where I look back and say, "Well, I was wrong about XXX." This is a circumstance where I can say, "Too bad I was right about this."
I agree, Jim. It amazes me that so many commentators here are pursuing the “enambler” line. I doubt it will last because now Trump is the older candidate with cognitive issues.
Well done, Jim, w/ double that for all the commentary that, as usual, runs the gamut in a respectful yet realistic manner. I'll just add three things that I think are unsaid:
1) The French people set the stage for the country to the surprise of many, but Macron and his residual hypercentrist and technocratic base are resisting the clear shift away from retrograde politics. We face both questions at the same time in November and beyond (one of the comments to which I replied inspired this...)
2) I think Joe Biden's initial recusal statement was an elegant and intimate gesture as reflected by his use of his personal stationary (h/t Matt Glassman and fwiw, I am glad the President did not do it via leaks or so-called "social media"...).
3) Assuming Kamala Harris is the nominee, I do not really care who is asked to be the VP... but I like Mark Kelly because of his profile (Arizona, astronaut, military service, gun safety, etc.).
While the cross-party fantasies don't make much sense because the likely individuals are not close to the center of the Democratic Party, I do hope the Democrats can enhance the image of a full spectrum ideological platform that respects those on the extremes on any given issue who reciprocate with respect for the substantial majorities who are not so doctrinaire or dogmatic (read: abortion, immigration, foreign policy, etc.).
The Mark Kelly idea seems better, the more it sinks in.
And him on a stage with JDV...
A few thoughts on yesterday’s events:
1) The media loves drama. The narrative on Saturday: Democrats in disarray; Trump survives assassination attempt. Is he unstoppable? Sunday: Republicans in disarray. Democrats uniting; Biden’s selflessness and his presidency lauded. Campaign narrative shifts (said without irony).
2) Where was I when I heard the news? I’m in Flagstaff, AZ, and coincidentally on Sunday morning I was at a local Democratic Party table at the Farmers Market (notably staffed by 70-somethings - thereby comes a tale). They told my wife and I; they had just heard.
3) When I heard the news I was overcome with emotion. I felt he needed to make this decision but was surprised by how it affected me. I’m a 71 year old Dad and Biden’s devotion to his family has always moved me deeply (even as I write these words). His devotion to country is something I hope all Americans recognize and feel themselves. Nobody should need the media to recognize the importance of what Biden has done or to see the contrast with Trump.
Thank you. Agree especially about #3.
JF, thanks again for being the adult in the room. Your thoughtful commentary again equals real leadership, although that may well not be your motivation. There is plenty to think about and plenty to do. As Joe said, there is nothing we can't do if we do it together.
Thank you; I appreciate it.
Living in London, I was surprised to hear the BBC repeat the Republican insinuations about Harris and others being “enablers” of Biden and concealing his mental state from the public. As you say and as we both know, handling the ageing process is a delicate issue, and it took the disastrous debate to jumpstart this passage of the baton or, if you will, car keys.
Bruce, thanks. On this side of the water as well this seems to be the line that a flummoxed GOP message-team has hit upon overnight. (Immediately after the news broke, the initial version of the GOP response boiled down to: "Hey, that's NO FAIR!!)
I'm sure "enabling" will remain part of the ongoing message. But I also assume that Harris (with the other younger-Dems team) will be agile enough to turn it around and say: " 'Enabling'? You really want to talk about ENABLING someone who is unit for office???"
Yes, the whole process of aging is unvarying in its eventual outcome, and nearly inescapable in the difficult along-the-way decisions it means. But of course it is widely variable person by person and moment by moment. As I've mentioned here, Deb's mom was near the peak of her piano-playing ability even past age 100. Then when she started to fail, it was very sudden. By contrast, my own mother went to sleep one evening after a "normal" day while in her 70s, and just never woke up. Based on his public performances, Biden was cruising along (though stiff in gait) until a few months ago. Then things seemed to go wrong quickly.
Admiration to Biden himself for finally facing and making the world's hardest version of "taking away the keys."
Two final points that didn't seem to get much attention today. 1. Biden's stated reason for stepping down: to focus on his responsibilities as president. That might read as a cover for someone who was essentially forced out, but I believe that's his intention, to do as much as possible to "finish the job."
2. A central theme of the Trump campaign has been that we shouldn't have an old, addled, incoherent person in charge of our country. Well that's exactly who the Republican nominee is. As I write this we're just days past Trump's rambling speech (if you could call it that) which went on for more than 90 minutes, putting most of those in attendance to sleep. And Trump himself fell asleep during his own convention, and during his trial. The Repubs will drop the age issue but the Dems shouldn't - specifically they should focus on competence and achievement.
Very good points, IMO. Thank you for the focus on them.
No, no, no on immediately annointing Kamala. While I'll certainly support her if she's the.nominee, we absolutely need to spend the time between now and the convention figuring out who the best candidate to win the presidency. If that proves to be Harris, great. But there is little evidence to suggest that she is and lots of evidence to suggest she isn't.
I was actually a Harris supporter in 2019. I'm from the Bay Area, thought she was a good DA and AG, did reasonably well as a senator, and I liked the fact that she is married to a Jewish guy. But then she ran away from her record as DA, proved to be a horrible candidate who repelled rather than attracted support, and her campaign imploded. Then, in 2020 when she chosen to be VP (which I was happy about), she again proved to be a poor campaigner.
Why do we think someone who was outcampaigned by Sanders, Warren, Buttigeig, Yang, and Klobuchar is now the best nominee? The fact that she has now served four years as VP is not going to be persuasive to anyone who isn't going to vote Democratic no matter who is on the ticket. The people we need to persuade are the 5-10% of folks who are actually on the fence. There is literally no evidence that Harris will be effective at getting these folks to vote for her.
Now I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Maybe over the last four years Kamala has prepared herself to become a better candidate. But let her prove that over the next few weeks in a real process to win delegates support in a contest with other candidates. Not only will that demonstrate whether she actually has what it takes, but it will draw far more people's interest than simply appointing her.
As a party, the Democrats made an enormous mistake over the last year. In the interest of having a smooth campaign, the party ignored voters clear concerns over Biden's age and suppressed a real campaign in favor of coronating Biden. Fortunately, the debate came early enough to clearly reveal that Biden wasn't up to the challenge and there was time to shift to someone else.
Let's not repeat this mistake. Let's not ignore the evidence that Kamala is a terrible candidate in the same way we ignored the evidence that Joe was no longer capable of being an effective candidate. Let's do with Kamala what we should have done with Joe; force them to demonstrate that they are the right person for the job. We'll have to do it more quickly, but there is still time.
Thanks for laying out the case this fully. As is evident, I've come out on the other side. As you know, *every* step and decision in this process is a move into the unknown and a matter of risk-calculation (with imperfect information). To me it has seemed that the risks of further delay and churn were greater than the risks of saying: Let's go with the one who is already vice president, and who has already been on the ticket that swept this year's primaries.
But as you say, there are clear risks here too. One area where KH has less "downside risk" than others is that she's already been through the multi-year "public vetting" process, with hostile news stories and so on. Very few of the alternative candidates have yet been through that wringer.
The overnight coalescence around Harris suggests that this is very likely a moot discussion. Unless there is yet another surprise development, she is on track to be the nominee. As you say, that could be a rush to judgment. At least initially I'm seeing it as a sign of revitalization and eagerness to move forward and re-focus the campaign on what's wrong with Trump.
I'm afraid you're right that the discussion may be moot. But I'd really push you James to articulate why you are so confident that Kamala is the best pick that you'd simply annoint her the nominee and help circle the wagons to discourage anyone else from competing versus givng her and a few others the opportunity to make the case why they are the right choice. I'd really like you to
My opinion best way to evaluate whether someone is a good basketball player is to watch them play basketball. The best way to evaluate whether someone be a good candidate for President is to see watch them be a candidate for President. We've SEEN Kamala be a candidate for President. She was so bad that despite coming into the race with a ton of momentum, she campaigned so poorly she didn't even make it to the primaries. Why in the world would we simply trust that she has improved without any evidence? What in the world, other than hope and wishes, gives you confidence that she has improved? I live in the Bay Area, and I'm a big Warriors fan. I really hoped James Wiseman was a great draft pick, but at some point you have to look past their potential and focus on what they actually are. I'm deathly afraid that Kamala is the James Wiseman of nominees.
I get the desire to want to stop worrying about the nominee and start focusing on Trump. But it was that desire that got us into this mess in this first place. The desire to have a unified party against him made us ignore the fact that huge percentages of the electorate were telling us they were concerned that Biden was too old. And I confess that I was part of that group. And so I was willing to muddle through with him at the top of the ticket without a competitive primary. And I was even willing to justify in my him avoiding doing press conferences.
I still thought he had enough in tank to be at least a half decent campaigner. But when he was unwilling to do a Super Bowl interview, the alarm bells really began ringing for me. And so I was glad that the early debate was scheduled since I figured it would give us an escape hatch just in case.
So it's shocking and disappointing to me that we're using that escape hatch to select someone who has proven herself to be a terrible campaigner, simply because Biden committed himself to picking an African American woman as his VP four years ago.
Meanwhile James, I hope you're doing some soul searching. I feel like you've spent the last few months defending Biden and pushing back against the concerns about his age. And now you're part of the crew calling on us to rally around Kamala rather than calling for a process where she (and others) could prove themselves.
I get that you're doing so because you hate Trump and everything he stands for (or perhaps more accurately doesn't stand for). I'm fully with you on that. But the tragic irony is that this approach has actually made it much more likely Trump will win. What Trump needs to win is a badly flawed candidate. He got that in 2016 with Hilary, and it appears to me that he's getting it again with Kamala. And while I hope I'm proved wrong about that, I really wish folks like you had spent less time defending Biden and now Kamala and more time critically evaluating whether they were really the best choice to win in 2024.
The party would have come together regardless of the nominee. It isn't love for Kamala that is driving the surge in support for her; it's hatred of Trump. But that isn't going to be enough to get people who don't hate Trump to vote Democratic, and we need some of those folks. The useful thing we could have done is use these next weeks to evaluate whether Harris or someone else is the right person to do that. Instead, we've traded a short feeling of unity for the loss of an opportunity to actually pick the best candidate.
Thanks. I appreciate your laying it out in this detail.
Here is the clearest way I can explain my own evolving views:
**It's a matter of weighing risks, in conditions of uncertainty.**
By far the lowest-risk approach would be staying with Biden. If he had not revealed what appear to be (recent-onset?) serious problems, that obviously would have been the least-disruptive course. But the freeze-ups (multiple) at the debate really did change risk calculations. Followed by most (not all) of the subsequent appearances by him compounding those fears.
So once we enter the **by definition risky** terrain of moving away from the incumbent, what's the least-risky-seeming path to follow? Two weeks ago, I wrote (as you know) that there was still time for a "mini primary" fest. That's what I put in the proposed Biden speech.
It's two weeks later now. The convention is less than four weeks away. My risk-calculation, *now,* is that it would be riskier overall to open things up at this point than for the party to coalesce around Kamala Harris. Also, no one is forcing them to coalesce. The only one who is saying "Why not me?" is none other than Joe "No Longer a Democrat" Manchin.
You can disagree with the calculation, but it is driven in my case by THE CALENDAR—two weeks have been burned up, since the time I (like you) was on record in favor of a more open process—and the reality of risks in any approach. Two weeks is a LOT of time, at this stage.
I know you see things differently. In "showing my homework" fashion, this is why I think *AT THIS POINT* coalescing is less risky than all the other options.
First off James, thanks for the thoughtful response. Appreciate you engaging.
Second, to be a little presumptuous, I'd love to see you in the future write a longer piece (as a Substack post not a comment here) revisiting your thinking over the last couple of years to see whether there was anything you learned or wished you had done differently. I'd suggest that if you made a series of decisions that all seemed right at the time but helped lead to a situation where we have replaced an incumbent President three weeks before the convention with a candidate whose history as a campaigner has been mediocre to disastrously bad, it's worth re-examining one's priors to make sure you don't make the same mistakes again. I think Matt Yglesias's post here (https://www.slowboring.com/p/i-was-wrong-about-biden) is a great example of this genre. Would be interested to see your reflections.
Third, here’s my version of that post:
I confess that while I was worried about Biden’s age and the many people (including my wife, a physician) who expressed discomfort about it, I was content to see him go through the primary season essentially unchallenged. Partly, because I was generally pleased with Biden’s performance as President and partly because I worried about two things: 1) The potential for Biden to come out of a primary process still the nominee but damaged; and 2) the tendency for primaries to push candidates to the left, when I think the race will be won in the center.
And while I don’t necessarily think those feelings were wrong, looking back I’m mad at myself for not only being comfortable with him facing no primary challenge but also being comfortable with him essentially eschewing press conferences or other situations where he would have to ad lib. If we were giving him a pass on the primary season, it was all the more important to demand he fully engage as a candidate to see whether he still had what it takes. But I didn’t. I just went along.
Second, after Biden’s refusal to do a Super Bowl interview and Ezra Klein’s February piece in the Times that there were better options than Joe, I began to have truly serious concerns about whether could be an effective campaigner. But again, not sure what a better option would be or how to get there, I did nothing. Looking back, what I should have done is join the chorus of folks arguing that Biden should immediately begin to behave like an actual Presidential candidate by barnstorming the country, conducting rallies, and engaging in interviews at the level a serious presidential candidate would be doing. And if he wouldn’t take that advice, that should then be taken as evidence that he was diminished and no longer the right candidate.
Looking back, those are the things I wish I had done differently and plan to do so in the future if ever confronted by a similar type of situation.
Point taken, and I will reflect on this.
Something for which I'd propose reflection on your side: This has always been a matter of assessing *relative risks,* in conditions of *uncertain information.*
By my calculations, the baseline risk of *any* challenge to an incumbent is very high.So a party does it only if they feel they have to. It's like saying "OK kids, we're getting a divorce" — you do it only when you think that this damaging course will be less damaging than the alternatives.
And in the "uncertain information" category, until maybe two or three months ago, we were in circumstances of Biden *continuing* to "overperform expectations," at all big events. As recently as his Morehouse and DDay presentations, he was *doing the job* well, as far as the public could observe.
So it's different from other decisions—and most like the analogy of a very destructive divorce. The historical evidence is *against* making this change unless you have to. And judging when "you have to" is complicated and hard to know at the time.
More to come.
Thanks Jim for this. A very historic and moments occasion. I remember exactly where I was, and when it was, when I heard in 5th grade going to lunch that "the President has been killed". November 22, 1963. I was today with a bunch of friends if my 29- year old son, on our boat sailing near NYC. Earlier today, my query on the 29- year gang on the 2024 election, got this reaction: "it's over, we don't follow it anymore". Two hours later, one of the gang blurts out, "omg, Biden has stepped out". He switches the Bluetooth connection to our music speaker to give us the live TV news on the event. They listen to it for an hour!! . First report: "Stepping down, but no endorsement of Kamala". Then later, "now the endorsement". The 29 year olds then high-fived. I cheered. They then quizzed me on similar days like Nov 22 and 9/11 and 1968.
Tom, wonderful (and heartening) story about "the young people." I think there is real potential that this move has a tremendous energizing effect.
Exciting to see the explosion of excitement and energy that was missing when Biden, though we voted for him, was the nominee. And also wonderful to see all the accolades and love pouring in, reminding everyone constantly of how much the Biden administration has accomplished. Really energizing -- and effective!
Thanks, agree.
A remarkable day.
Sadly this statement from Obama didn’t quite meet the moment in terms of what happens next:
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-07-21/read-barack-obamas-statement-on-president-joe-bidens-race-withdrawal
Hadn't seen that Obama statement until just now. I thought it was appropriately generous (and detailed) about Biden's achievements, and about the difficulty and importance of his choice. As for next steps— maybe he didn't want to have it look as if the party big shots were dictating what would happen? Don't know. And it is amazing to think that not even 12 hours have passed.
I take your point.
With this remarkable move from Biden on top of Trump’s wretched convention speech the Republicans have taken quite a one-two punch.
They were due.
Were it not for his stroke, Fetterman would have been a great addition to the ticket.
"Not a traditional politician. Also not a clown."
I'm salivating at the thought of a debate between Kamala Harris and DT - I believe the contrast between what I expect to be her spirited performance vs DT's senescent carnival act would be a joy to behold - even better than that of Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, yes - this is a truly historic moment. Not entirely unanticipated, of course, and in many ways tragic, but definitely one which will go down in the history books, even more than LBJ in '68. And while I hate to dampen the hopes that are filling Democrats all over the US right now, let's not forget that even after LBJ removed himself from the contest, Democrats still lost the White House to "I'm not a crook."
We have an enormous job to do in the short time left before the election: we need to choose a candidate, flesh out a meaningful platform that is based on much more than "at least she's not DT," and we need to get all of our legal ducks in a row - because it is a given that DT & his henchmen will be out for blood, and will most assuredly find any and every legal loophole they can to contest the candidacy of whatever Democrat we choose.
Let's also remember with LBJ there was a wide spread discontent with his persistence in Vietnam that motivated, and arguably justified, a lot of acrimony among delegates and voters. Although many think the President has been too indulgent with Israel's war in Gaza, that sentiment has not risen to the levels of emotion surrounding Vietnam. Therefore I think there is reason to believe that the good will now being showered on the President will buoy the party in understanding that support for Harris is a morally unambiguous imperative.
Yes. I well remember the carnage (literal and metaphorical) in 1968—and *still* Humphrey came very very close, in popular-vote terms, to beating Nixon. And, as you know, that was a Democratic party *really* in disarray, and a far more turbulent domestic scene than now.
One of many blessings for the party, and the country, of the brave step Biden has taken is allowing (and motivating) people to focus on practical next-steps like those you lay out.
So glad Joe didn't drag this difficult decision out any longer. Time to suit up, folks, and help Kamala unify the Party and confront and take this fight to the reality-challenged Republican Party of today. A Trump-Harris debate and a Gretchen Whitmer V.P. pick debate opposite another Midwesterner, Vance, could produce two debates for the ages, at so many policy and ideological levels. A Beyonce/Taylor Swift collaboration the last night of the convention introduced by Joe and Jill, prior to Kamala's acceptance speech could spark the path to an historic Democratic leaning turnout among America's younger generations. How perfect that Joe endorsed a former prosecutor and wished her all the best in this historic moment.
Agree, thank you.
A huge weight was lifted off of our collective shoulders today. I suspect people who put their thinking publicly on the line, like you James, helped him make this difficult decision. It bodes well for the President's legacy that should be celebrated by future generations for his term's achievements and not tarnished by a nagging obstinacy that viewed him as the only deliverer. Bravo! As to how this should proceed, it is in the best traditions that the party gets to parse out the selection of the best next candidate. The new candidate should not be dictated to by the previous leader. Biden's input is important and should not be dismissed, but it must be the absolutely best candidate available and should be selected by the entire convention. Loyalty is certainly a valued consideration. Diversity is also an important factor. Overwhelmingly, this candidate has to appeal to a large enough group of voters who will view them as a better, younger, more moral, more intelligent, fairer, more thoughtful, less radical and more centrally inclined choice than the opponent. I just pray that we, as a party, have enough cohesiveness and flexibility to get to this point and give this election the kind of choice that the country needs.
Thanks. Appreciate your kind words, and share your respect for how Biden worked through this.
As noted in the original post, my own sense is that the clock was running out for "mini primaries" etc. And it appears that there's momentum very rapidly building around Kamala Harris. But (in keeping with what you say) she has been careful to say that she wanted to "earn" the nomination.