More Thoughts on the Debate and Its Aftermath

As with my last post, a few thoughts not organized into a single argument but presented as a list of items.

• On the question of Biden dropping out, I hear people say, “surely there’s another leading Democrat who is up to this challenge?” Or, “how can it be there’s no way to do this?” Or, to me personally, “why can’t you see that this is the obvious thing to do?” The best way I can answer this is to say that my assumption is that switching candidates now is the equivalent of pricing in 10 or 20 debate-night disasters. That doesn’t include how the next person does. I mean the simple act of making the switch. I’m not asking you to believe that’s true for the moment. Maybe you disagree and that’s fine. But if you’re trying to understand my reasoning, that is a significant part of what it’s based on. Needless to say, you need to be certain the current plan is hopeless and that person X is going to really knock it out of the park if you make the switch. Again, I have my own assumptions and theories that get me to this conclusion. I note it here just to give you a sense of why, while I’m not ruling anything out, I’m still very skeptical about a switch.

• I’ve spent much of the weekend reading and responding to your emails, often with several rounds of back and forth with individual TPM readers. This has always been my central editorial tool in doing what I do. It’s a hugely valuable focus group with a certain slice of Americans, mostly Democrats, though not all, and mostly sharing at least a broad set of common beliefs, albeit with a fair amount of heterogeneity within those broad commonalities. In having these discussions, I have been struck by descriptions of the reactions to the debate itself. As I noted in Friday’s piece, people describe being unable to watch the debate, feeling physical ill in some cases, having difficulty sleeping, feelings of deep, deep anguish that can really only be compared to a response to severe trauma. These are way outside the norm for reacting even to major or alarming political events. I want to make one point crystal clear: I’ve been critical of acting out of panic, of running around like a chicken with its head cut off. What I am describing here — people’s feelings — is emphatically not that. Panic and that kind of freak out is about what we do, what actions we take. What readers are describing is a subjective internal experience. These are wholly different things. Life is about what we do, not what we feel. What we feel, our internal state of being, is always a reality we’re fools to deny. For this note I have no point to make about this other than to simply recognize it. Because it is a deep reality. And recognizing it is important in itself. These reactions are part of the larger political moment we live in, how much feels on the line, how much we’re in uncharted territory. It’s worth just absorbing that as an experience we’re having ourselves and, if not ourselves, one that many others are.
  
• Here’s one reason I think switching equals 10 to 20 debate night-level disasters. We’ve spoken a lot over the years about dominance politics. There’s Trump’s predatory version of it. And then there’s the looser version of it that governs all American politics. Probably politics in a lot of other places too. But American politics is what I know. Some people think, “Look, our policies are popular. People worry about this one guy’s age. Pull off the bandage. Swap out candidates. Sure it will be bumpy. But that question mark disappears. Democrats will get excited. It will be a new day.” Maybe. But I’m skeptical. The election is not just about two people. It’s about two teams, both strutting on the national stage saying we’re smart, we’re strong, we know how to do this, give us the keys. Switching candidates amounts to saying, “In fact we were idiots. We said it was this guy. But actually we were wrong, or maybe we lied to you. And to be clear we are formally affirming that we were wrong and we’re agreeing to talk about being wrong for the rest of the campaign. And now we’re kind of desperately scrambling to come up with something totally different. And this new person — actually they’re the one, even though we said that other guy was the one. And really they’re the one even though we don’t know them that well.” Trump’s pitch has been: “The world is on fire. This doddering old fool is MIA and can’t fix anything. I can fix it. Give me the keys.” Now he’ll say: “Look at them. They said Joe could do it. Now they admit he can’t. Now they’re fighting amongst themselves. They’re a mess. They’re liars and idiots. They can’t do anything. Gimme the keys.” That may not make sense to highly engaged, politically literate observers. But few of them are really in play in this election. To those loosely following politics and reacting to general impressions I think that is a very persuasive argument. In fact, the point is that it’s not an argument at all. It’s simply an impression of strength and purpose versus failure and disarray. Much more than politically focused, politically articulate people care to admit, much of politics is about a series of performances of power, success, mastery and purpose. What’s being envisaged is so totally at odds with that I think it creates a narrative that’s hard to come back from. It becomes what the campaign is about. You can certainly argue that a campaign where Biden’s age and faculties are a big part of the story ain’t great either. And you’re absolutely right. But we’re already there. And even with a replacement, it still will hang over things, only now with Democrats saying, “Well, okay. Trump was right. Sorry.” Yes, a new candidate makes a difference, but that’s totally a leap into a hole it will be a struggle to climb out of. If that’s what’s necessary then I’m totally ready. But don’t fool yourself about the costs.
  
• One TPM reader told me, “I think this may not have that big an impact. But like every editorialist is saying Biden should step down. How do you undo that? How does he repair that?” I don’t think that matters. My strong sense is that this goes in the following way. If over the next week to ten days the shape of the race doesn’t materially change, everything just moves forward. But if over some interval the bottom drops out of Biden’s support, I think people in his campaign will tell him that and he will decide to leave the race. This really isn’t about public polls. Campaigns have access to much more granular information, about key groups, etc. etc. I think that is what determines all of this. That’s what will determine Biden’s future. If the bottom falls out, then those pundits will be validated. Or, maybe not really validated — but it will be a predictive win. If not, what they said won’t matter. People ask a lot, why isn’t anyone saying Trump should drop out? Because Trump and Republicans won’t care. Democrats will. That’s worth thinking about. Worth thinking about regardless of what happens here.
  
• A few readers have proposed that Biden should remain in the race but announce either that he will step down soon after being sworn in for a second term or after some defined interval. So he will step down after one year or something like that. This reassures those worried about not just his age now but by the end of a second term. As I have expressed to these readers, I’m almost certain this is a very, very bad idea. You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. I’m going to say that again: You cannot run a winning campaign based on validating your opponent’s central premise. Campaigns are about strength and weakness. You cannot say you embody weakness and win. There’s no splitting this difference. Might Biden not be able to serve out his term? Sure, maybe. That’s what vice presidents are for. If that happens it happens. There’s an app for that. The vice presidency. You cannot make that the brand of your campaign and win.
  
• I continue to strongly, strongly think this is about optics, not the actual work of the presidency. That doesn’t solve anything. But it focuses what we’re talking about. I saw Ezra Klein write that if it’s true that Biden sometimes gets garbled in a stressful rapid fire situation maybe he’ll get outwitted by President Xi during a phone call. I don’t want to be over-harsh, but this is a very poor understanding of what Presidents actually do.
  
• A few TPM readers said: “Hey, I appreciate you joining Team Drop Out.” I haven’t joined Team Drop Out. I’ve joined the team of I’m keeping an open mind and I’m going to see what evidence develops but I remain really skeptical of doing anything besides forging ahead with Joe Biden. So that means I’m skeptical that this represents a crisis of electability for Biden. But having spoken with a large number of TPM readers I have no doubt this has created a major, major crisis of confidence for many supporters. I’ve read many emails from TPM readers who’ve said: “I’ve always said the idea of replacing Biden was absurd. And then I watched the debate. And now I think he needs to leave the race.” Total about-face. The campaign needs to find a way to get those people back on board. Of course they’re going to vote for whoever runs on the Democratic ticket no matter what. But that radical loss of confidence needs to be fixed. You need a lot more from your core supporters than just showing up to vote. And the campaign needs to repair that damage. I’m pretty certain that doesn’t mean some kind of apology tour, as some suggest. And it’s not really a matter of explaining. This is a show, don’t tell thing. This a matter of getting out and campaigning aggressively and well and letting that speak for itself.
  
• I’m not going to name them. But I’ve seen a lot of really respected columnists, not just “respected” but people who are really good, saying Biden should step down. Every one I’ve read reads with a level of grandiosity that I found weak, reactive and vain. My two cents.
  
• One idea that is out there is that if Democrats fall in line behind President Biden and put their concerns to one side, they’re no different from Trump Republicans, ignoring facts, following the leader. I’ve seen a few editorialists make this case and I can see it has some sympathy from some Democrats. This is such an appallingly stupid and bad argument it’s hard for me to even address it. Democrats have no affirmative responsibility to listen to columnists. They don’t have to hold a symposium about everything. Sometimes you simply need to dive into a fight even if that means setting aside some of your own doubts. Democrats don’t have anything to prove on this front. It’s just dumb and self-defeating and if you want to know why no one bothers to write editorials about why Trump should drop out — again, this is why.