As the author of the first Pass The Torch Joe petition, I believe the respectful pleas from grassroots activists played a part in the drama. Remember one of Biden's arguments after his NC rally was that Democratic voters wanted him to stay in. In fact, our petitions and various polls showed most Democrats thought Biden was too old to win after the Trump debate.
More important was the steady stream of polls showing Trump opening up a 3% national lead after the debate, the shooting, and the GOP convention. Before those events, the race was tied, and nothing - not even Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts - was moving the needle. If Biden was 3% down, how was he going to move into the lead? Ultimately it was that analysis from Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti that convinced Biden, as Politico reported: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-out-00170106
I signed that petition and promoted it here! But I think the donor collapse was most critical. Think of it this way--if Biden had one Sheldon Adelson in his corner willing to write Future Forward a $100M check, would he have dropped out?
BIden greatly outspent Trump on TV ads before he dropped out - yet none of that spending was moving the needle. Would $100M more have convinced voters Biden wasn't too old to beat Trump? No.
In this respect, we need to give Ezra Klein and the NYTimes editorial board their due. They made the case strongly and defended it against massive retaliation.
Agree with this. I'm sure Pelosi and donors maneuvering helped, but ultimately I think it was a collective thing. And that was an accurate read.
The reality is that while many people respected Biden's performance in office, there was never much personal love for him. The reason credible opponents didn't challeng him in the primaries was the feeling that Biden was still the best bet for stopping Trump and no one wanting to be blamed for screwing that up.
As soon as the debate made it clear that he was no longer that person, and in fact now might be the person that would ensure Trump's return, it became a matter of time.
Interestingly yet understandably, some statistics show that around three quarters of Americans favor a governmental implementation of a number of public programs, notably universal health care and some form of guaranteed income plan [a.k.a. welfare]. A sufficiently large number of Americans are financially struggling just that much.
Yet, the Democratic National Committee apparently refuses to allow the genuinely fiscally progressive Senator Bernie Sanders as its presidential nominee, however many Democrat voters want him.
For example, every county in West Virginia voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, yet the DNC declared them as wins for Hillary Clinton! That doesn’t sound very democratic, does it? The neo-liberal New York Times also is noticeably unprofessionally hostile toward Sanders for his ideals and desire to truly help disenfranchised, low- or no-incomed Americans.
I find it arrogantly presumptuous of the DNC and party (etcetera) to expect economically disenfranchised citizens to vote for an establishment Democrat candidate with thinly veiled ties to corporate interests and who’s not going to improve the poor person’s lot in life — simply to vote out or keep out an undesirable Republican. And, of course, to wait in long bad-weather lineups for the privilege.
Morally speaking, Americans [and Canadians with our prime ministers, for that matter] collectively deserve far better than just either the usual callous conservative or neo/faux liberal in the White House. But it seems the superfluously rich and powerful have always had the police and military ready to foremost protect their big-money/-power interests, even over the basic needs of the masses.
Thank you so much for this! The cognitive dissonance of this week has driven me crazy. I unregistered as a Democrat because there was nothing democratic about this. Just because this oligarchy is smiles and advocates for policies I agree while trashing an entire primary does not mean this is a positive development for democracy.
As one who held firm to the line of Biden staying in as long as possible, nevertheless, the psychic relief I felt upon his departure was so strong that it made me question my own understanding of politics. The way I summed it up a day or two later was that Biden had been a great President but a lousy candidate in 2024. Aging sucks.
I'm surprised the media is completely absent from your account. I was very sympathetic to the AOC/Bernie strategy you accurately outline above, but honestly, it seemed ridiculous to imagine Biden moving forward with a populist (or otherwise) campaign amidst what amounted to a media strike, where the campaign would not be covered as a two person race until Biden stepped down. Until then, the coverage was all "when is Biden going to step down? Look at how obvious it is he needs to!"
As the author of the first Pass The Torch Joe petition, I believe the respectful pleas from grassroots activists played a part in the drama. Remember one of Biden's arguments after his NC rally was that Democratic voters wanted him to stay in. In fact, our petitions and various polls showed most Democrats thought Biden was too old to win after the Trump debate.
More important was the steady stream of polls showing Trump opening up a 3% national lead after the debate, the shooting, and the GOP convention. Before those events, the race was tied, and nothing - not even Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts - was moving the needle. If Biden was 3% down, how was he going to move into the lead? Ultimately it was that analysis from Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti that convinced Biden, as Politico reported: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/21/why-biden-dropped-out-00170106
I signed that petition and promoted it here! But I think the donor collapse was most critical. Think of it this way--if Biden had one Sheldon Adelson in his corner willing to write Future Forward a $100M check, would he have dropped out?
BIden greatly outspent Trump on TV ads before he dropped out - yet none of that spending was moving the needle. Would $100M more have convinced voters Biden wasn't too old to beat Trump? No.
In this respect, we need to give Ezra Klein and the NYTimes editorial board their due. They made the case strongly and defended it against massive retaliation.
Agree with this. I'm sure Pelosi and donors maneuvering helped, but ultimately I think it was a collective thing. And that was an accurate read.
The reality is that while many people respected Biden's performance in office, there was never much personal love for him. The reason credible opponents didn't challeng him in the primaries was the feeling that Biden was still the best bet for stopping Trump and no one wanting to be blamed for screwing that up.
As soon as the debate made it clear that he was no longer that person, and in fact now might be the person that would ensure Trump's return, it became a matter of time.
Regardless of an otherwise interesting bit of theorizing, I have to wonder why you chose a MAGA moniker Brandon, in reference to Joe Biden.
Interestingly yet understandably, some statistics show that around three quarters of Americans favor a governmental implementation of a number of public programs, notably universal health care and some form of guaranteed income plan [a.k.a. welfare]. A sufficiently large number of Americans are financially struggling just that much.
Yet, the Democratic National Committee apparently refuses to allow the genuinely fiscally progressive Senator Bernie Sanders as its presidential nominee, however many Democrat voters want him.
For example, every county in West Virginia voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, yet the DNC declared them as wins for Hillary Clinton! That doesn’t sound very democratic, does it? The neo-liberal New York Times also is noticeably unprofessionally hostile toward Sanders for his ideals and desire to truly help disenfranchised, low- or no-incomed Americans.
I find it arrogantly presumptuous of the DNC and party (etcetera) to expect economically disenfranchised citizens to vote for an establishment Democrat candidate with thinly veiled ties to corporate interests and who’s not going to improve the poor person’s lot in life — simply to vote out or keep out an undesirable Republican. And, of course, to wait in long bad-weather lineups for the privilege.
Morally speaking, Americans [and Canadians with our prime ministers, for that matter] collectively deserve far better than just either the usual callous conservative or neo/faux liberal in the White House. But it seems the superfluously rich and powerful have always had the police and military ready to foremost protect their big-money/-power interests, even over the basic needs of the masses.
Thank you so much for this! The cognitive dissonance of this week has driven me crazy. I unregistered as a Democrat because there was nothing democratic about this. Just because this oligarchy is smiles and advocates for policies I agree while trashing an entire primary does not mean this is a positive development for democracy.
As one who held firm to the line of Biden staying in as long as possible, nevertheless, the psychic relief I felt upon his departure was so strong that it made me question my own understanding of politics. The way I summed it up a day or two later was that Biden had been a great President but a lousy candidate in 2024. Aging sucks.
Still, I think your analysis is pretty accurate.
I'm surprised the media is completely absent from your account. I was very sympathetic to the AOC/Bernie strategy you accurately outline above, but honestly, it seemed ridiculous to imagine Biden moving forward with a populist (or otherwise) campaign amidst what amounted to a media strike, where the campaign would not be covered as a two person race until Biden stepped down. Until then, the coverage was all "when is Biden going to step down? Look at how obvious it is he needs to!"