Member Newsletter
In yesterday’s podcast Kate and I discussed that NYT-Siena poll (way overplayed and exaggerated but still not great for Biden) and the debate story which was literally continuing to break and change while we recorded the pod. The two stories intersect in some interesting ways.
The Times said: “The early-debate gambit from Mr. Biden amounted to a public acknowledgment that he is trailing in his re-election bid, and a bet that an accelerated debate timeline will force voters to tune back into politics and confront the possibility of Mr. Trump returning to power.”
A public acknowledgement!
In recent days I’ve been in a running conversation with several Times staffers about Times coverage, some private, some on social media, trying to both keep it real and keep it calm. When I saw this line it struck me as part of that subtext of so much Times coverage, at least going back months and in many ways much longer, of “Joe, stop playing games and admit you’re behind. Admit you’re behind, Joe!”
It’s sort of part and parcel of the demand for an interview, which got all the play in that Politico piece. There’s a whole hidden world of private jousting behind a piece like this. The White House doesn’t want to do an interview with the Times but they’re doing them with Howard Stern and local news outlets. The Times folks would say, that’s not the same. Those places haven’t been covering all the big political stories constantly for years. They don’t know how to follow up on an incomplete answer like we do. And that’s true. That really is true. That’s why lots of presidents want to go for interviews with the non-elite press. Those reasons, and also the people they’re trying to reach — less-plugged-in voters, less-politically-tuned-in voters. It’s programs like Howard Stern where they might find these people. But there’s also a strong vibe, in the Times’ critique, of, “This isn’t for us, Joe. We’re The New York Times. You need to do this interview for America.”
I mean, TPM would love a Biden interview too. But that’s because we’d love to get that interview. It’s not for America.
Remember that Axios piece that said Biden was in denial about his poll numbers? The idea here is that because Biden isn’t shaking up his campaign or firing his campaign manager or switching his message he’s not only behind but sleep walking toward defeat. When I saw the whole debate thing flare up yesterday it struck me as a total power move by Biden. He dared Trump to debate him. Trump quickly agreed. In principle. Then Biden said, great let’s do this CNN one. Not only a power move but Biden got Trump to agree to what is almost universally seen as a less-than-Trump-friendly format — no Fox, no audience, just the two men and two legit journalists, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
Those are hardly unfair debate terms. But they limit Trump’s obvious and routine avenues for funny business. Trump also pushed for a third debate on Fox. But Biden said a flat no.
And yet Trump was happy to say yes really fast even on terms that probably weren’t of his choosing. The best summary of this whole thing — and the best game-theory unwrapping of it since, well, it can’t be in both their interests to debate can it? — came from Jonathan Last in the Bulwark. (If you’re not familiar with it it’s essentially the new home of the Never-Trump survivors of the collapse of The Weekly Standard.)
He writes:
All in all, yesterday’s move […] sends a few encouraging signals about the Biden campaign:
- They recognize the reality of their standing in the race.
- They aren’t panicking and grasping for a “reset.” They have a theory of the campaign.
- But they’re also nimble enough to look for tactical advantages that can be picked up on the fly.
- They’re confident enough in Biden’s abilities that they’re letting him debate Trump twice.
There are a dozen things the Biden campaign could/should be doing better.² But that’s true of every campaign. Overall, yesterday’s announcement was encouraging.
This is quite good. It captures the balance, the heart of it. Yes, Biden’s a bit behind. But there is a poverty to what we might call “make some changes” discourse. It’s tough running behind in a campaign. It’s tough running just a bit behind (which is the accurate characterization of this race) when the stakes are so damn high. You also want your candidate to have a good theory of the campaign and be confident in that theory. We’ve seen plenty of campaigns hit a point where they just start throwing spaghetti against the wall, seeing what will stick. A “reboot,” a “reset,” a new campaign manager. The result is almost universally ugly as fuck. You ditch your strategy for a new one. But that one doesn’t work any better. How long do you hold on to a runner-up strategy when it’s not working any better than your first choice? Probably not long. Soon you’re on to your second reboot and your third strategy and everyone inside the campaign and out knows you’re in a death spiral. It’s pretty hard to get your voters and activists and campaign workers pumped when you’re sending the signal loud and clear not only that you think you’re losing but that you’ve decided you have no idea what to do to change the situation. Like I said, a death spiral.
Sometimes you’re 10 points back a month before Election Day and your theory of the campaign hasn’t worked so … really, what the fuck else are you going to do? This is why a lot of campaigns not only lose but lose ugly. Because they’re simply out of options. And if you’re definitely losing the non-risk of losing ugly is worth taking for the slight chance you’ll happen on something that works better.
Needless to say, being a point or at most two back six months before the election is not that situation. You absolutely don’t want your campaign doubting its theory of the election or its strategy, “making changes” as they say. Especially when it is a good theory of the election (which I take to be: use key issues to consolidate fractures in the D coalition and focus everyone on the binary choice between Biden and Trump). But you do want to remain on the offensive and be on the lookout for opportunities to create moments of volatility in which existing strategies can get traction. And like Last, I think this debate move is a good example of that. Stay on offense, always on offense. Maximize the time you’re acting rather than reacting.