As I wrote in my (truncated) comment in the Guardian to your piece on Biden, I think it is completely wrong because it ignores the realities of US presidential politics. Unfortunately our pre-election campaigning takes a long time and is extremely expensive. There is not an obvious front-runner to replace Biden and the first primaries are only a few months away. No one to my knowledge has started up a campaign staff, worked to get donors, etc. Because there is no obvious choice, replacing Biden will result in a frenzied fight between contenders, which always results in bad feelings (e.g., Hillary and Bernie). It will waste a lot of money on advertising for different candidates that could be used in the general election, and it will take focus away from Trump. How will black voters feel if Kamala gets put aside? The Republicans will gleefully use attack lines from the primaries in the general. There are huge advantages to the incumbent supported by a united party.
Biden, while not perfect, has done about as good a job as anyone could wish. The ONLY reason to dump him is age, and that's not good enough. He's beaten Trump once, and he'll do it again.
Biden has done a much better job than you suggest. Plus, decency, humility, and pragmatism count. A “bottom up, middle out” policy is a good one, and Biden has built a solid record, with a slim majority, on that front. The other Democratic candidates are weak to non-existent. Your fundamental argument is about his age--but aging has its benefits, too. And to label the elders as a “Brezhnev-like gerontocracy” is unfair and not really very smart… or fully grammatical. Finally, whatever the polls say, Biden won bigly last time, and, with his incredible record in adding jobs and boosting wages, he should win by an even bigger margin next time. Trump will be hobbled (or better) by a dozen lawsuits.
Of course, there are some hidden assumptions behind my optimism, including one that Americans are still fair-minded and open to reasonable persuasion. If you don’t believe that, how can you get up in the morning? The challenge, for Democrats, is the reasonable persuading part.
I'm sorry, but I can't get past the "well-intentioned centrist initiative No Labels". This taints the entire message, imo, suggesting someone on the right trying to trick me. I don't see the NoLabels as sincere, but merely put up by far-rightists trying to get trump in there again, such as Putin and Leo Leo.
My concerns are not with Biden (although I considered him about #22 in the 25 or so Dem candidates in 2020), but with every non-Maga-extremist who might place a vote for TFG. We know the Maga-extremists are mentally not with "it", but why would someone not caught up in the cult go in that direction?
As I wrote in my (truncated) comment in the Guardian to your piece on Biden, I think it is completely wrong because it ignores the realities of US presidential politics. Unfortunately our pre-election campaigning takes a long time and is extremely expensive. There is not an obvious front-runner to replace Biden and the first primaries are only a few months away. No one to my knowledge has started up a campaign staff, worked to get donors, etc. Because there is no obvious choice, replacing Biden will result in a frenzied fight between contenders, which always results in bad feelings (e.g., Hillary and Bernie). It will waste a lot of money on advertising for different candidates that could be used in the general election, and it will take focus away from Trump. How will black voters feel if Kamala gets put aside? The Republicans will gleefully use attack lines from the primaries in the general. There are huge advantages to the incumbent supported by a united party.
Biden, while not perfect, has done about as good a job as anyone could wish. The ONLY reason to dump him is age, and that's not good enough. He's beaten Trump once, and he'll do it again.
Biden has done a much better job than you suggest. Plus, decency, humility, and pragmatism count. A “bottom up, middle out” policy is a good one, and Biden has built a solid record, with a slim majority, on that front. The other Democratic candidates are weak to non-existent. Your fundamental argument is about his age--but aging has its benefits, too. And to label the elders as a “Brezhnev-like gerontocracy” is unfair and not really very smart… or fully grammatical. Finally, whatever the polls say, Biden won bigly last time, and, with his incredible record in adding jobs and boosting wages, he should win by an even bigger margin next time. Trump will be hobbled (or better) by a dozen lawsuits.
Of course, there are some hidden assumptions behind my optimism, including one that Americans are still fair-minded and open to reasonable persuasion. If you don’t believe that, how can you get up in the morning? The challenge, for Democrats, is the reasonable persuading part.
I'm sorry, but I can't get past the "well-intentioned centrist initiative No Labels". This taints the entire message, imo, suggesting someone on the right trying to trick me. I don't see the NoLabels as sincere, but merely put up by far-rightists trying to get trump in there again, such as Putin and Leo Leo.
My concerns are not with Biden (although I considered him about #22 in the 25 or so Dem candidates in 2020), but with every non-Maga-extremist who might place a vote for TFG. We know the Maga-extremists are mentally not with "it", but why would someone not caught up in the cult go in that direction?
Washington Post contribution to this debate (EJ Dionne overlapped at Oxford with TGA) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/09/29/joe-biden-should-bow-out/
Wonderful. Great to have a rare voice of sanity in these scary times.