This is what I posted in Mastheads a private discussion group that is the successor to The Atlantic premium subscriber group. It's long and a little late given the date stamps on other comments. Barb Didrichsen who subscribes here is a member of Mastheads.
I've spend the past 4-5 days thinking about Biden: his age, competence, and public perception of same, and reading SCOTUS rulings and commentary to try to form a solid opinion on what they mean. And what effects they will have in the short and long term. It has been a full time job.
The principle I follow for deciding on whether or not Biden should be the nominee is simple and has not changed. Who is most likely to beat Trump. My opinion based on feeling, facts, news & commentary (opinion here in Mastheads) and my admittedly incomplete political analysis is changing.
This morning I'm leaning fairly strongly to Kamala Harris as nominee. She is the only alternative to Biden who can likely inherit the Biden-Harris organization and money. She has the highest name recognition nationally and in the battleground states collectively. She's seen the job of President up close and personally, and assisted governing as VP for going on 4 years. She has participated in a national campaign. There are lots of other very capable Democrats. None of them has all of these advantages and qualifications.
Biden has to be willing to step down and actively support this plan. To have this work Biden needs to do just what he should be doing now as presumptive nominee. Behind the scenes there should be a concerted effort to build consensus for Harris. I've no illusion that this will remain 'secret'. Sooner rather than later the media will be all over this story. It can be described - off the record - as no more than a prudent plan B. That might not even be a lie.
What moves me is ongoing reflection on Joe's debate performance. @WalnutClose's description of Biden's performance as sundowners struck very close to home. If this was an aberration, not likely to happen again before the election, if Biden can do multiple weekly unscripted hard interviews with unbiased, fair reporters and perform well, the plan need not be executed. I think the quickest way to put last Thursday's fiasco behind him is to push for a rematch with Trump as soon as possible.
If he performs well he's the candidate. If he's not up to this, then no debate and plan B is actually plan A. Biden accepts the nomination at the convention. And Immediately after the convention he drops out with the recommendation that Harris take his place. The idea is to avoid a contentious convention fight. I know this is not the most democratic process, but it's not historically aberrant either. I think it's most likely to get the right candidate with the least conflict. IMO. As always, could be wrong.
With the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, the high stakes in the Presidential election have gotten higher. A Trump win would be a generational setback.
With Trump v. US our system of government changes dramatically. Our grand national experiment of government of, by and for the people may be coming to an end. Checks have been weakened, feels like eliminated and we will be out of balance. We won't become Kim's North Korea nor Putin's Russia, but we may become like Hungary or Turkey on a grand scale. Our unique form of government will become an imperial president system, at best functioning like a parliamentary system, and not the best of those given the amoral sociopath that is Donald Trump.
That's the clearest expression of my feelings this morning. This is a dynamic, time pressured situation. We'll know more and better over the next several weeks.
The biggest personal upside of the hypothetical I suggest is that I keep doing what I do. All in for Joe. And then maybe, all in for Kamala. And in any scenario all in for whoever isn't Trump.
It seems to me we need to know how representative Biden’s performance was compared to his ongoing condition. If it was something that has happened in the past, there’s no choice what to do. We should not have to take anyone’s word that it was just a bad night. Let’s cut through all the guesses and speculation and get an accurate assessment.
I agree. As I mention in some of the exchanges below, Biden had for a long time looked "stiff" and "old." But until this last debate, he had always seemed to rally when it mattered. Remember the flap several months ago when he said "Mexico" rather than "Egypt"? That was a big deal at the time, but it is the kind of thing that EVERYONE does. I have never even met Biden or seen him operate "in private." But what we'd seen in public was a stiff-looking person with a lifelong stutter, who still managed to rise to occasions.
So, yes, we need to know how representative the debate was, for his overall current level of functioning.
I had never planned to watch the debate- get too nervous, and my wife and I had plans to watch the sunset at a viewpoint in San Diego over a glass of wine with friends, as we do each Thursday. But 10 minutes into the debate I was hopeful and curious and texted my daughter, who I knew was watching from her home in San Francisco. I texted, “How's it going?” I got three words back that I will always remember, “Drink more wine."
One thing that is now clear after the debate is that the campaign strategy ahead needs to be about what a Trump presidency would be like, much more than touting Biden’s accomplishments. Nothing should be left to the imagination. We need informercials, commercials, documentaries, town halls, etc. saturating our airwaves day and night about the horror of a Trump win.
Phil, thank you. I agree. And of course what Trump said that night was incomparably more alarming than anything Biden did or said (or didn't manage to say). That is where the focus needs to be.
The situation reminds me of Dr. Michael J. Halberstam's satirical novel, "The Wanting of Levine." May the current mess be resolved that well.
The trap that faces the Democrats: They feel "indebted" to Biden for his great public service; they think pressing him to abandon the nomination would be disrespectful and in poor taste. Maybe so. But present circumstances require offending Biden--because the probable consequences of not doing so are cataclysmic.
A parallel from sports history: In Game 6 of the1986 World Series, with Boston leading by two runs going into the Mets' ninth inning, the Red Sox decided not to follow his usual procedure of replacing weak-fielding first baseman Bill Buckner, with a more agile player. "I wanted to give him the satisfaction of being on the field when we clinched.the Series." Nice thought, but it didn't work out so well when Buckner's error let the Mest winn the game--and go on to take the Championship.
Another bit of good advice, from baseball great Branch Rickey: "Beware the anesthetic effect of a great star."
For the sake of the team, I hope President Biden decides to leave the presidency under his own moral power, rather than hanging on until he loses it involuntarily--and at great cost to the United States.
I appreciate your weighing in, and the apt comparisons. And, yes, I recognize the connections with Michael Halberstam's novel. The Boston-area sporting allusions too. Of course I agree with your closing wish.
The genuine conceptual challenge for me is resolving these conflicting realities (or at least conflicting ideas):
- That it would have been better all around, in retrospect, if Biden had announced his one-term intentions in the 2023 State of the Union. (Though that would have made him a premature lame duck, which who knows what effects.) But that didn't happen.
- That it would be more convenient for the party now if it could magically place one of its numerous next-generation figures at the head of the ticket. Whitmer, Newsom, Shapiro, Pritzker, Warnock, Raimondo, Buttigieg, Moore, others — there is a very deep bench.
- That Kamala Harris does not so far seem to have the built-in leading-the-ticket appeal of some of the figures above, BUT that skipping past her at this point could open all sorts of wounds.
- That an "open convention" sounds invigorating in theory, but you can imagine all the wounds it could leave and fissures it could open.
- That Biden has repeatedly shown rebound ability, for instance in his North Carolina appearance today. Who knows which is more representative: his floundering last night, or his confidence today.
I just don't know what to hope for or "recommend." The most graceful solution would be the one you end on: Biden's own decision that it's time to step aside, and *some* non-fratricidal way of choosing an alternative. But this is something I can hope for rather than foresee.
Biden had a stellar speech today in NC and the crowd was very enthusiastic. I am waiting to see if the media gives this much attention but I’m not holding my breath.
Yes, I saw that today. Admiration to Biden, in "getting back on the horse" fashion, for going right out there after a bad performance and talking to the crowd. On the principle that in a campaign "things keep happening," we'll see how new impressions Biden is able to leave affect or offset the terrible impression from last night.
Biden served his country well, beat Trump, was (is) a good, perhaps great, president . As President, he accomplished more than I ever expected; I just wanted him to beat Trump. He did that and more.
But now, I am more than disappointed; I’m angry. He ran to be a “transitional” president. We all know what he meant by that. But his arrogance and stubbornness, and the small and evidently timid group of long time advisers he surrounds himself with, have led us to the unimaginable return to office of Trump.
Last night really shouldn’t have been such a shock. I think we all knew there was a reason Biden’s press interactions have been so limited. And giving a strong speech is one thing; give and take quite another. This wasn’t an “off night,” and to top it all off, as you noted, I don’t think Trump has ever controlled himself better (low bar, of course).
I don’t know. I hope I am so wrong, but I’m scared to death of the consequences.
Thanks. I honestly don't know what to think at this moment: Power on through, with more powerful rallies (as the one today in NC apparently was) and events with a Dem all-star list. Or decide that the Larger Good lies in opening things up to ... someone else. It's the mess of figuring out who that "someone" is that is a barrier.
A friend today said that Biden — and, crucially, Harris, in a joint statement — should open things up for informal decisions by delegates between now and the convention. (Nearly two months away.) It would *have* to be Biden and Harris jointly because (a) all the politics of "why not Kamala?" and (b) many of the delegates were *elected* in their states to vote for a Biden/Harris ticket at the convention.
My friend — a veteran reporter — had this reasoning: The main way to get the press off the Trump-obsessive beat is to make an open Democratic field the most exciting story in town. And, he argued, it would be good for the Dems to have many different representatives making their case around the country.
Thanks for confirming I wasn't hallucinating last night. Your ability to distill the Trumpian stream of blather and lies is truly impressive. I think the only bit that I heard that you didn't cover was the mention of a dog in his drug policy answer -- I'll just assume it made absolutely no sense to you either.
I'll take the guy with the stammer over the guy who -- at age 78 -- still lies about his golfing achievements.
Hi Jim --- on point once again. Unfortunately at my (our) age, I know quite a few men who cannot recognize their diminished abilities, and they believe that they are needed in 'the work' as much as ever. (Women also: think Ruth Bader Ginsburg). A graceful exit is far better than ending in failure, and it is usually the people and things that one most cares about that suffer. Biden said he was a one term transition candidate, and he would have been valorized had he stuck to that. Now, if he does lose to Trump, he will be considered a failure. Tragic, as hubris ever is.
Thanks. Yes, in the aviation world the motto is "better too soon, than too late." And the related homily: "Every pilot takes a final flight. It's better if that one is planned."
Every public figure ends his or her term. Better too soon that too late. (Exception: FDR.) Better if it is planned.
I don't know that much about Russia, but you have to imagine this is 100% plus for Putin.
In Beijing, I think more like like 70/30 positive from their point of view. They'd like a less aggressive and confident US. But (I think unlike Russia) they would still like a *functional* US, which they can do normal business with on a range of issues. They're not getting that with Trump.
I feel like I have nothing to add to a lot of the good comments here about the debate itself and the media reaction to it except that whoever on the Biden side who agreed to a fact check free debate should have been fired five seconds after Trump started talking. Actually someone with even the slightest level of forethought should have figured out what a "debate" without fact checking would enable Trump to do and refused to sign it in the first place. No wonder Trump agreed so readily to the terms of the fake debate.
However, I cannot unsee Biden's physical and mental decline in what happened last night. I'm old (about to turn 78) and my husband is 83. We are both physically and mentally active but we are also very much aware that this is a time in our lives where we see our friends getting sick with serious illnesses or showing early signs of mental decline and we know that we could be next. From the personal experience of losing a daughter to breast cancer at 38, we also are well aware that disease can strike and kill at any age.
Having said that, I still had a sinking feeling in the back of my head when Biden decided to run again. I did not buy into the idea that he was failing either mentally or physically and did not buy into the media chatter about that. But a few days ago I read a comment from a reader in another site which spoke about the possibility that Biden was showing signs of Parkinson's. As someone whose father died of it, the comment stuck in my mind like an earworm of a song. When I saw Biden shuffle across the stage, then stare aimlessly into the middle distance instead of at the camera, speak so softly that it was hard to hear him and be unable to complete a thought coherently through much of the debate, I didn't see just a bad night. I saw my Dad before it was clear how sick he really was at a time when he was exhausted after traveling overseas. Those were the symptoms of Parkinson's he had when he was just a few years older than Biden. I obviously am not a doctor, but I'm no longer willing to discount the idea that Biden has serious physical issues beyond simple aging. At the very least it's way beyond time for him to release his medical records. I really hope I am wrong about this but frankly I can't get it out of my mind.
I agree with your first point, about the folly and/or hubris of agreeing to this format in the first place. A situation in which Trump can *simply spew out lies*, with no correction, is built-in to be bad.
Very sorry to know about your family's losses. And I do know what you mean, from extended-family experience, about the haunting images of older patients with later-stage Parkinsonism. The team advising a serving president *must* have included someone who could advise Biden on how to hold himself during a 90-minute huge-audience live debate. (Yes, I know, presidents don't listen. But this matters.) His "resting" appearance during the debate was bad. And for me, as for you, it brought up bad memories.
Debbie, thank you, I have wondered that. Thanks to Sam for the insight.
I don't know if we've discussed this before, but: As you may know, my late father was an internist. Maybe 30 years ago, he saw one of your and my mutual friends speaking on TV. My dad called me that evening and said, "You should have your friend go to a neurologist. He needs to be checked for Parkinson's." This was from seeing his carriage and expression on TV, and I think this was long before the friend was even aware of the condition. (Which did in fact develop.)
I think it has been a valuable plus for Biden (among many) that he has been so forthright about his stuttering challenge. If he does have Parkinson's it would be valuable in many ways to have that be known.
Still can't shake the impression that Biden was there for a debate, and seemed to have been stuffed with facts and figures that he wasn't that fluent with, so stumbled at getting out (and maybe that's the stutter coming up, too).
But Trump was there for a TV performance, and wanted to make points about 18 million people coming across the open border and killing and raping and taking your social security, while democrats are fighting for post-birth abortion. For which you just go on and on to make your points and ignore the questions, because it's all dominance display.
Biden's prep team should have seen that coming a mile away. Seems like they didn't.
Maybe suffering from the notion this was supposed to be a "debate".
Excellent analysis, as usual. I, too, thought Trump sounded almost rational for the first thirty minutes or so, which was quite unnerving. Also thought Biden won on substance. But what is “won” when you are stating or stumbling through some assorted facts in the face of an onslaught of BS? I heard talk this morning of the Biden’s campaign’s “plan for recovery.” Dear God. Though Biden’s performance strengthened as the debate proceeded, over the course of the evening he was incoherent many times, and it’s hard to recall even a moment—and there should have been many—when he effectively dispensed with Trump’s nutty assertions. Time for Biden to call it quits. I think he could probably do the job—particularly given the generally good quality of the people with whom he surrounds himself. But he doesn’t have the presence to win the election.
Thanks. This is of course the essential dilemma. Clearly Biden has been doing an excellent job of *being* president. The question is whether he can do the historically necessary job of stopping Trump. None of us can know right now — or be sure of the consequences of changing horses at this stage. And it matters so much.
After a restless night, I wrote the following early this morning before I checked the internet for comments or Substack
”TWO OLD MEN AND THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
Georgia and I watched the presidential debacle last night. This was a historical first: an 81-year-old president ‘debating’ a 78-year-old past president related to the November presidential election.
CNN sought to establish debate rules that were fair: two minute answers, one minute rebuttals, and mics cut off at the time limit. Two CNN commentators submitted questions to the candidates.
When President Biden appeared, he seemed subdued [did he have a cold?] and really old. [None of the State of the Union Scranton Joe spark.] When Donald Trump commenced, he acted like a pit bull lunging for a bone.
Within the first few minutes the tenor was set: Biden would seek to respond to a question asked, often with more facts than ‘visceral Scranton Joe.’
In sharp contrast, Trump sought to dominate discussion. I don’t recall that he ever responded directly to any question posed by the commentators (even when they repeated the question). Instead, Trump has a liturgy of points that, in my judgment, won him a Guinness World record for presidency candidacy lying and misrepresentation.
Clearly Trump believes that, if you tell a big enough lie often enough, a number of people will believe it. The greatest whopper, which he repeated incessantly, was that Biden was the worst president in American history. [This is his riposte to the distinguished panel of historians and political scientists who, in their latest assessment, find Trump the worst president in American history.]
Regarding the first hand reports that he called American servicemen ‘suckers’ for serving and ‘losers’ for dying, his denial was not believable.
At 90 I have watched numerous presidential debates. Relatively few, including Kennedy-Nixon, Bush-Clinton-Perot, Reagan’s second debate with Mondale, and, perhaps, the Gore-Bush debate have significantly moved the political needle.
I fear that the contrast between Biden’s hesitancy (especially during the first half) and Trump’s over-the-top, staccato lies provide wind in Trump’s sails and prompt major reflections by Democratic leaders.
I am appalled that, in the first CNN reactions to the ‘debate,’ virtually no one has focused on substance. Whatever Trump’s debating technique, he steadfastly refused to respond to questions regarding his proposed policies and his defense of his past presidency was worm ridden.
By contrast, President Biden provided a cohesive description of what his administration has accomplished in diverse domestic and global areas. I feel that he provided a context for cohesive policies that have been working. His defense of alliances, including NATO, and his attack of Trump’s more-tax-benefits for the wealthy had a ring of authenticity.
Right now Trump and his sycophants are dancing in the streets, while prominent Democrats are concerned that they will be burdened with Biden heading the ticket.
I cannot predict what will occur over the coming months. I do know that, based on substance in last night’s debate, Biden is the old man best suited to continue leading the United States, while Trump would be even a greater train wreck than during his initial presidency.
Keith, as you would expect, I agree on the tone and the specifics. Thank you. And these coming days really matter in the long course of the nation's history. As you're well aware.
Good Lord, people: get a grip. Yes, he's old. He started weak, finished strong. Trump lied for 90 minutes and, as Heather Cox Richardson notes, the news media (and, I think, a lot of politicians) are just evaluating this based on "performance" and not on substance. I'm not a political consultant, and I'm not qualified to be, but there are FOUR MONTHS for Biden to do a lot to win the election: regular sit-down interviews with top reporters and editors; a full-court press (in-person and via the media) to get young people to understand the stakes of the election); a careful reassessment of the format for the next debate (not depending on spineless reporters to actually "moderate"; vivid reminders, over and over (remember: Biden has a lot of $$ for ads) on how awful it was under Trump); etc. And, seriously, The Former Guy could be behind bars in a couple of weeks. And there's plenty of time for an October surprise.
You have a point and perhaps we are pretty much panicking over last night's awful debate, but so far, none of the things you suggest Biden's campaign do over the next 4 months have worked so well (e.g., before the debate, polls showed that roughly 49% of registered voters planned to vote for Trump). I cannot even imagine what the under-40 set is thinking this morning in light of their pre-debate antipathy for both elderly candidates, but it can't be good for Biden; most, I expect, will just stay home on Election Day, even as they realize at some level that another Trump presidency will shatter their futures. The only people who need to "get a grip," as you put it, are Joe and Jill Biden (and perhaps some trusted members of their family). At the very least, a "Come to Jesus" intervention - a reality check - is called for.
This is what I posted in Mastheads a private discussion group that is the successor to The Atlantic premium subscriber group. It's long and a little late given the date stamps on other comments. Barb Didrichsen who subscribes here is a member of Mastheads.
I've spend the past 4-5 days thinking about Biden: his age, competence, and public perception of same, and reading SCOTUS rulings and commentary to try to form a solid opinion on what they mean. And what effects they will have in the short and long term. It has been a full time job.
The principle I follow for deciding on whether or not Biden should be the nominee is simple and has not changed. Who is most likely to beat Trump. My opinion based on feeling, facts, news & commentary (opinion here in Mastheads) and my admittedly incomplete political analysis is changing.
This morning I'm leaning fairly strongly to Kamala Harris as nominee. She is the only alternative to Biden who can likely inherit the Biden-Harris organization and money. She has the highest name recognition nationally and in the battleground states collectively. She's seen the job of President up close and personally, and assisted governing as VP for going on 4 years. She has participated in a national campaign. There are lots of other very capable Democrats. None of them has all of these advantages and qualifications.
Biden has to be willing to step down and actively support this plan. To have this work Biden needs to do just what he should be doing now as presumptive nominee. Behind the scenes there should be a concerted effort to build consensus for Harris. I've no illusion that this will remain 'secret'. Sooner rather than later the media will be all over this story. It can be described - off the record - as no more than a prudent plan B. That might not even be a lie.
What moves me is ongoing reflection on Joe's debate performance. @WalnutClose's description of Biden's performance as sundowners struck very close to home. If this was an aberration, not likely to happen again before the election, if Biden can do multiple weekly unscripted hard interviews with unbiased, fair reporters and perform well, the plan need not be executed. I think the quickest way to put last Thursday's fiasco behind him is to push for a rematch with Trump as soon as possible.
If he performs well he's the candidate. If he's not up to this, then no debate and plan B is actually plan A. Biden accepts the nomination at the convention. And Immediately after the convention he drops out with the recommendation that Harris take his place. The idea is to avoid a contentious convention fight. I know this is not the most democratic process, but it's not historically aberrant either. I think it's most likely to get the right candidate with the least conflict. IMO. As always, could be wrong.
With the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, the high stakes in the Presidential election have gotten higher. A Trump win would be a generational setback.
With Trump v. US our system of government changes dramatically. Our grand national experiment of government of, by and for the people may be coming to an end. Checks have been weakened, feels like eliminated and we will be out of balance. We won't become Kim's North Korea nor Putin's Russia, but we may become like Hungary or Turkey on a grand scale. Our unique form of government will become an imperial president system, at best functioning like a parliamentary system, and not the best of those given the amoral sociopath that is Donald Trump.
That's the clearest expression of my feelings this morning. This is a dynamic, time pressured situation. We'll know more and better over the next several weeks.
The biggest personal upside of the hypothetical I suggest is that I keep doing what I do. All in for Joe. And then maybe, all in for Kamala. And in any scenario all in for whoever isn't Trump.
It seems to me we need to know how representative Biden’s performance was compared to his ongoing condition. If it was something that has happened in the past, there’s no choice what to do. We should not have to take anyone’s word that it was just a bad night. Let’s cut through all the guesses and speculation and get an accurate assessment.
I agree. As I mention in some of the exchanges below, Biden had for a long time looked "stiff" and "old." But until this last debate, he had always seemed to rally when it mattered. Remember the flap several months ago when he said "Mexico" rather than "Egypt"? That was a big deal at the time, but it is the kind of thing that EVERYONE does. I have never even met Biden or seen him operate "in private." But what we'd seen in public was a stiff-looking person with a lifelong stutter, who still managed to rise to occasions.
So, yes, we need to know how representative the debate was, for his overall current level of functioning.
I had never planned to watch the debate- get too nervous, and my wife and I had plans to watch the sunset at a viewpoint in San Diego over a glass of wine with friends, as we do each Thursday. But 10 minutes into the debate I was hopeful and curious and texted my daughter, who I knew was watching from her home in San Francisco. I texted, “How's it going?” I got three words back that I will always remember, “Drink more wine."
One thing that is now clear after the debate is that the campaign strategy ahead needs to be about what a Trump presidency would be like, much more than touting Biden’s accomplishments. Nothing should be left to the imagination. We need informercials, commercials, documentaries, town halls, etc. saturating our airwaves day and night about the horror of a Trump win.
Phil, thank you. I agree. And of course what Trump said that night was incomparably more alarming than anything Biden did or said (or didn't manage to say). That is where the focus needs to be.
JMF,
The situation reminds me of Dr. Michael J. Halberstam's satirical novel, "The Wanting of Levine." May the current mess be resolved that well.
The trap that faces the Democrats: They feel "indebted" to Biden for his great public service; they think pressing him to abandon the nomination would be disrespectful and in poor taste. Maybe so. But present circumstances require offending Biden--because the probable consequences of not doing so are cataclysmic.
A parallel from sports history: In Game 6 of the1986 World Series, with Boston leading by two runs going into the Mets' ninth inning, the Red Sox decided not to follow his usual procedure of replacing weak-fielding first baseman Bill Buckner, with a more agile player. "I wanted to give him the satisfaction of being on the field when we clinched.the Series." Nice thought, but it didn't work out so well when Buckner's error let the Mest winn the game--and go on to take the Championship.
Another bit of good advice, from baseball great Branch Rickey: "Beware the anesthetic effect of a great star."
For the sake of the team, I hope President Biden decides to leave the presidency under his own moral power, rather than hanging on until he loses it involuntarily--and at great cost to the United States.
Hiller B. Zobel
Judge! A blast from the past.
I appreciate your weighing in, and the apt comparisons. And, yes, I recognize the connections with Michael Halberstam's novel. The Boston-area sporting allusions too. Of course I agree with your closing wish.
The genuine conceptual challenge for me is resolving these conflicting realities (or at least conflicting ideas):
- That it would have been better all around, in retrospect, if Biden had announced his one-term intentions in the 2023 State of the Union. (Though that would have made him a premature lame duck, which who knows what effects.) But that didn't happen.
- That it would be more convenient for the party now if it could magically place one of its numerous next-generation figures at the head of the ticket. Whitmer, Newsom, Shapiro, Pritzker, Warnock, Raimondo, Buttigieg, Moore, others — there is a very deep bench.
- That Kamala Harris does not so far seem to have the built-in leading-the-ticket appeal of some of the figures above, BUT that skipping past her at this point could open all sorts of wounds.
- That an "open convention" sounds invigorating in theory, but you can imagine all the wounds it could leave and fissures it could open.
- That Biden has repeatedly shown rebound ability, for instance in his North Carolina appearance today. Who knows which is more representative: his floundering last night, or his confidence today.
I just don't know what to hope for or "recommend." The most graceful solution would be the one you end on: Biden's own decision that it's time to step aside, and *some* non-fratricidal way of choosing an alternative. But this is something I can hope for rather than foresee.
Thanks for writing in. JMF
Biden had a stellar speech today in NC and the crowd was very enthusiastic. I am waiting to see if the media gives this much attention but I’m not holding my breath.
Yes, I saw that today. Admiration to Biden, in "getting back on the horse" fashion, for going right out there after a bad performance and talking to the crowd. On the principle that in a campaign "things keep happening," we'll see how new impressions Biden is able to leave affect or offset the terrible impression from last night.
Biden served his country well, beat Trump, was (is) a good, perhaps great, president . As President, he accomplished more than I ever expected; I just wanted him to beat Trump. He did that and more.
But now, I am more than disappointed; I’m angry. He ran to be a “transitional” president. We all know what he meant by that. But his arrogance and stubbornness, and the small and evidently timid group of long time advisers he surrounds himself with, have led us to the unimaginable return to office of Trump.
Last night really shouldn’t have been such a shock. I think we all knew there was a reason Biden’s press interactions have been so limited. And giving a strong speech is one thing; give and take quite another. This wasn’t an “off night,” and to top it all off, as you noted, I don’t think Trump has ever controlled himself better (low bar, of course).
I don’t know. I hope I am so wrong, but I’m scared to death of the consequences.
Thanks. I honestly don't know what to think at this moment: Power on through, with more powerful rallies (as the one today in NC apparently was) and events with a Dem all-star list. Or decide that the Larger Good lies in opening things up to ... someone else. It's the mess of figuring out who that "someone" is that is a barrier.
A friend today said that Biden — and, crucially, Harris, in a joint statement — should open things up for informal decisions by delegates between now and the convention. (Nearly two months away.) It would *have* to be Biden and Harris jointly because (a) all the politics of "why not Kamala?" and (b) many of the delegates were *elected* in their states to vote for a Biden/Harris ticket at the convention.
My friend — a veteran reporter — had this reasoning: The main way to get the press off the Trump-obsessive beat is to make an open Democratic field the most exciting story in town. And, he argued, it would be good for the Dems to have many different representatives making their case around the country.
God knows. (Or maybe no one knows.)
Jim:
Thanks for confirming I wasn't hallucinating last night. Your ability to distill the Trumpian stream of blather and lies is truly impressive. I think the only bit that I heard that you didn't cover was the mention of a dog in his drug policy answer -- I'll just assume it made absolutely no sense to you either.
I'll take the guy with the stammer over the guy who -- at age 78 -- still lies about his golfing achievements.
The "we had a phenomenal dog" segment made me think I was the one hallucinating. Rivaling only the golf-score part.
Hi Jim --- on point once again. Unfortunately at my (our) age, I know quite a few men who cannot recognize their diminished abilities, and they believe that they are needed in 'the work' as much as ever. (Women also: think Ruth Bader Ginsburg). A graceful exit is far better than ending in failure, and it is usually the people and things that one most cares about that suffer. Biden said he was a one term transition candidate, and he would have been valorized had he stuck to that. Now, if he does lose to Trump, he will be considered a failure. Tragic, as hubris ever is.
Thanks. Yes, in the aviation world the motto is "better too soon, than too late." And the related homily: "Every pilot takes a final flight. It's better if that one is planned."
Every public figure ends his or her term. Better too soon that too late. (Exception: FDR.) Better if it is planned.
They're loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Yes.
I don't know that much about Russia, but you have to imagine this is 100% plus for Putin.
In Beijing, I think more like like 70/30 positive from their point of view. They'd like a less aggressive and confident US. But (I think unlike Russia) they would still like a *functional* US, which they can do normal business with on a range of issues. They're not getting that with Trump.
I feel like I have nothing to add to a lot of the good comments here about the debate itself and the media reaction to it except that whoever on the Biden side who agreed to a fact check free debate should have been fired five seconds after Trump started talking. Actually someone with even the slightest level of forethought should have figured out what a "debate" without fact checking would enable Trump to do and refused to sign it in the first place. No wonder Trump agreed so readily to the terms of the fake debate.
However, I cannot unsee Biden's physical and mental decline in what happened last night. I'm old (about to turn 78) and my husband is 83. We are both physically and mentally active but we are also very much aware that this is a time in our lives where we see our friends getting sick with serious illnesses or showing early signs of mental decline and we know that we could be next. From the personal experience of losing a daughter to breast cancer at 38, we also are well aware that disease can strike and kill at any age.
Having said that, I still had a sinking feeling in the back of my head when Biden decided to run again. I did not buy into the idea that he was failing either mentally or physically and did not buy into the media chatter about that. But a few days ago I read a comment from a reader in another site which spoke about the possibility that Biden was showing signs of Parkinson's. As someone whose father died of it, the comment stuck in my mind like an earworm of a song. When I saw Biden shuffle across the stage, then stare aimlessly into the middle distance instead of at the camera, speak so softly that it was hard to hear him and be unable to complete a thought coherently through much of the debate, I didn't see just a bad night. I saw my Dad before it was clear how sick he really was at a time when he was exhausted after traveling overseas. Those were the symptoms of Parkinson's he had when he was just a few years older than Biden. I obviously am not a doctor, but I'm no longer willing to discount the idea that Biden has serious physical issues beyond simple aging. At the very least it's way beyond time for him to release his medical records. I really hope I am wrong about this but frankly I can't get it out of my mind.
I agree with your first point, about the folly and/or hubris of agreeing to this format in the first place. A situation in which Trump can *simply spew out lies*, with no correction, is built-in to be bad.
Very sorry to know about your family's losses. And I do know what you mean, from extended-family experience, about the haunting images of older patients with later-stage Parkinsonism. The team advising a serving president *must* have included someone who could advise Biden on how to hold himself during a 90-minute huge-audience live debate. (Yes, I know, presidents don't listen. But this matters.) His "resting" appearance during the debate was bad. And for me, as for you, it brought up bad memories.
Sam (my retired physician husband) has been saying for months that Biden likely has Parkinson’s…
Debbie, thank you, I have wondered that. Thanks to Sam for the insight.
I don't know if we've discussed this before, but: As you may know, my late father was an internist. Maybe 30 years ago, he saw one of your and my mutual friends speaking on TV. My dad called me that evening and said, "You should have your friend go to a neurologist. He needs to be checked for Parkinson's." This was from seeing his carriage and expression on TV, and I think this was long before the friend was even aware of the condition. (Which did in fact develop.)
I think it has been a valuable plus for Biden (among many) that he has been so forthright about his stuttering challenge. If he does have Parkinson's it would be valuable in many ways to have that be known.
Still can't shake the impression that Biden was there for a debate, and seemed to have been stuffed with facts and figures that he wasn't that fluent with, so stumbled at getting out (and maybe that's the stutter coming up, too).
But Trump was there for a TV performance, and wanted to make points about 18 million people coming across the open border and killing and raping and taking your social security, while democrats are fighting for post-birth abortion. For which you just go on and on to make your points and ignore the questions, because it's all dominance display.
Biden's prep team should have seen that coming a mile away. Seems like they didn't.
Maybe suffering from the notion this was supposed to be a "debate".
Excellent concise description of the origin of this train-wreck. Thank you.
Excellent analysis, as usual. I, too, thought Trump sounded almost rational for the first thirty minutes or so, which was quite unnerving. Also thought Biden won on substance. But what is “won” when you are stating or stumbling through some assorted facts in the face of an onslaught of BS? I heard talk this morning of the Biden’s campaign’s “plan for recovery.” Dear God. Though Biden’s performance strengthened as the debate proceeded, over the course of the evening he was incoherent many times, and it’s hard to recall even a moment—and there should have been many—when he effectively dispensed with Trump’s nutty assertions. Time for Biden to call it quits. I think he could probably do the job—particularly given the generally good quality of the people with whom he surrounds himself. But he doesn’t have the presence to win the election.
Thanks. This is of course the essential dilemma. Clearly Biden has been doing an excellent job of *being* president. The question is whether he can do the historically necessary job of stopping Trump. None of us can know right now — or be sure of the consequences of changing horses at this stage. And it matters so much.
Jim
After a restless night, I wrote the following early this morning before I checked the internet for comments or Substack
”TWO OLD MEN AND THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
Georgia and I watched the presidential debacle last night. This was a historical first: an 81-year-old president ‘debating’ a 78-year-old past president related to the November presidential election.
CNN sought to establish debate rules that were fair: two minute answers, one minute rebuttals, and mics cut off at the time limit. Two CNN commentators submitted questions to the candidates.
When President Biden appeared, he seemed subdued [did he have a cold?] and really old. [None of the State of the Union Scranton Joe spark.] When Donald Trump commenced, he acted like a pit bull lunging for a bone.
Within the first few minutes the tenor was set: Biden would seek to respond to a question asked, often with more facts than ‘visceral Scranton Joe.’
In sharp contrast, Trump sought to dominate discussion. I don’t recall that he ever responded directly to any question posed by the commentators (even when they repeated the question). Instead, Trump has a liturgy of points that, in my judgment, won him a Guinness World record for presidency candidacy lying and misrepresentation.
Clearly Trump believes that, if you tell a big enough lie often enough, a number of people will believe it. The greatest whopper, which he repeated incessantly, was that Biden was the worst president in American history. [This is his riposte to the distinguished panel of historians and political scientists who, in their latest assessment, find Trump the worst president in American history.]
Regarding the first hand reports that he called American servicemen ‘suckers’ for serving and ‘losers’ for dying, his denial was not believable.
At 90 I have watched numerous presidential debates. Relatively few, including Kennedy-Nixon, Bush-Clinton-Perot, Reagan’s second debate with Mondale, and, perhaps, the Gore-Bush debate have significantly moved the political needle.
I fear that the contrast between Biden’s hesitancy (especially during the first half) and Trump’s over-the-top, staccato lies provide wind in Trump’s sails and prompt major reflections by Democratic leaders.
I am appalled that, in the first CNN reactions to the ‘debate,’ virtually no one has focused on substance. Whatever Trump’s debating technique, he steadfastly refused to respond to questions regarding his proposed policies and his defense of his past presidency was worm ridden.
By contrast, President Biden provided a cohesive description of what his administration has accomplished in diverse domestic and global areas. I feel that he provided a context for cohesive policies that have been working. His defense of alliances, including NATO, and his attack of Trump’s more-tax-benefits for the wealthy had a ring of authenticity.
Right now Trump and his sycophants are dancing in the streets, while prominent Democrats are concerned that they will be burdened with Biden heading the ticket.
I cannot predict what will occur over the coming months. I do know that, based on substance in last night’s debate, Biden is the old man best suited to continue leading the United States, while Trump would be even a greater train wreck than during his initial presidency.
Keith, as you would expect, I agree on the tone and the specifics. Thank you. And these coming days really matter in the long course of the nation's history. As you're well aware.
Good Lord, people: get a grip. Yes, he's old. He started weak, finished strong. Trump lied for 90 minutes and, as Heather Cox Richardson notes, the news media (and, I think, a lot of politicians) are just evaluating this based on "performance" and not on substance. I'm not a political consultant, and I'm not qualified to be, but there are FOUR MONTHS for Biden to do a lot to win the election: regular sit-down interviews with top reporters and editors; a full-court press (in-person and via the media) to get young people to understand the stakes of the election); a careful reassessment of the format for the next debate (not depending on spineless reporters to actually "moderate"; vivid reminders, over and over (remember: Biden has a lot of $$ for ads) on how awful it was under Trump); etc. And, seriously, The Former Guy could be behind bars in a couple of weeks. And there's plenty of time for an October surprise.
You have a point and perhaps we are pretty much panicking over last night's awful debate, but so far, none of the things you suggest Biden's campaign do over the next 4 months have worked so well (e.g., before the debate, polls showed that roughly 49% of registered voters planned to vote for Trump). I cannot even imagine what the under-40 set is thinking this morning in light of their pre-debate antipathy for both elderly candidates, but it can't be good for Biden; most, I expect, will just stay home on Election Day, even as they realize at some level that another Trump presidency will shatter their futures. The only people who need to "get a grip," as you put it, are Joe and Jill Biden (and perhaps some trusted members of their family). At the very least, a "Come to Jesus" intervention - a reality check - is called for.
Yes. Things Will Keep Happening. Everything you recommend makes sense to me.
Sigh…