Biden's Wasting Asset

In my recent post calling for Joe Biden to withdraw from the Democratic primary, I posited that his early polling lead was due mostly to name recognition, which I called a “wasting asset.” In a comment, Paul Horwitz asked for clarification “in a way that helps us apply it to other candidates.” Said Paul, “Your post is not at all clear on what constitutes an asset: I would have thought that experience in the executive and legislative branches might be an asset.”

To be clear, then, I was referring only to Biden’s main asset as a candidate, as opposed to his qualifications for office. As I said in the original post, I think he would make a fine president, and I would vote for him – or any Democrat, or probably any Republican – over the incumbent. But the fact is that the most well-qualified candidate does not always win, and experience is often either a non-factor or an actual impediment to electoral success. We have seen this repeatedly in the post-WWII era, as the most experienced candidates lost in 1960, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008, and 2016.

Paul also says he “would be perfectly happy with a categorical suggestion that any candidate over 55 or 60 should drop out.” This is a tempting suggestion. Four  of the last five Democrats to win the White House all ran as “change” candidates – Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama – and three of those four were in their youthful 40s (Carter being the exception, though he was only 54). Democrats have not been successful running as “continuity” or “restoration” candidates, witness what happened to Walter Mondale and Al Gore. The last Democrat to win a first term on a non-change platform was LBJ, and that was obviously a very special situation.

As vulnerable as Trump may seem, 2020 promises to be a very difficult election for Democrats, as both the odds and history favor the incumbent.

I have not yet chosen a candidate, and I hope the field quickly narrows (though that does not currently seem likely). I am certain that I disfavor the re-treads, Biden and Sanders. I like the idea of a generational change, although that would rule out Warren, whom I greatly admire.

Paul wonders whether I would call on any “damaged” candidate to drop out. I think that depends on the nature of the damage and my assessment of the candidate’s ability to overcome it. That is, what are the candidate's other assets, campaign-wise, and how would they fare in the general election? That is admittedly speculative, which is why we have an extended primary season. Remember, Jeb Bush was the GOP frontrunner at this point in 2015.

In sum, I do not think that a single misstep will, or should, doom a candidacy. But I do think that Biden's claim on the nomination rested largely on name recognition, generic party preference, and, let's face it, nostalgia. However much that might help him in the primary, it would not be enough to beat Trump, which is why I think he ought to quit now.

Comments

[anon]

In response to the last post by Lubet, I observed:

"This is the new Left: long in rage and contempt for Trump (substitute Romney, Bush, Reagan, Nixon and any other republican, it doesn't matter) and short in principles. ... Here are the "issues" Lubet avoids: trying to bribe the voters with free (i.e., taxpayer funded) education, forgiveness of all student debt, free health care, guaranteed federal employment, a guaranteed monthly income, and, to put a cherry on the cake, all these benefits for any person who manages come into this country, whether with or without permission, and without regard to payment by that person of taxes of any kind."

Lubet doubles down, drawing a specious distinction between ability to win (merit of "candidacy") and ability to govern (merits of candidate). This stance reflects the ongoing deep disrespect the new LEft holds for the people.

To be sure, when we say "the people", for a new Leftist, we are not speaking of the "deplorables." These persons are "irredeemables" and therefore not even part of the discussion (about 48% of the country).

No, when a new Leftist refers to "the people" or "the voters" he or she means those who can be expected to vote for a Democrat. And, as we read and listen to the new Leftists, it becomes clear that they have no respect at all for these voters.

For a new Leftist, these voters are easily manipulated by brainwashing techniques, no matter how many billions are spent by the DNC and the Democratic candidates (Citizen United, "Russia"); these voters are racists (they vote on the basis of ethnic identity); these voters are ageists (they unashamedly postulate ageist tropes and engage in age discrimination), and these voters are easily swayed by unrealistic promises of free stuff at the expense of the despised "others." (It literally appears that the Democratic pitch is that rich white people will pay for all the give aways -- see, e.g., the claim for "reparations" ....)

The new Left, perhaps the Left always, has had a low opinion of "the People." Perhaps "the people" aren't as stupid and gullible and venal as the new Left presupposes them to be. Perhaps, just perhaps, they actually do pay some attention to the issues, or at least, to whether the candidate has a theme (e.g., Obama had a theme, for sure: did he carry it out)?

[anon]

There is a flaw in Lubet's analysis, even if we accept the specious "candidacy" v. "candidate" distinction.

Lubet states " I [am] referring only to Biden’s main asset as a candidate, as opposed to his qualifications for office [his name recognition]."

Are we to suppose that Sanders suffers from a lack of name recognition?

From Wiki: "Sanders narrowly lost the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses by 0.25% of the vote.[94] He won the New Hampshire Democratic primary on February 9, 2016 by 22.4% of the vote (60.4% to Hillary Clinton's 38.0%), receiving strong support from voters who considered it important to nominate a candidate who is "honest and trustworthy".[95][96] This made him the first self-described democratic socialist and first non-Christian to win a major party's U.S. presidential primary.[97][98][99] In his home state of Vermont, Sanders received 86.1% of the vote, denying Clinton any delegates. He also won "landslide" victories in Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. On March 8, Sanders pulled off an upset in the Michigan Democratic primary, where polls had favored Clinton by significant margins.[100] Of the 78% of pledged delegates allocated in primaries and caucuses by May 10, 2016, Clinton had won 54% to Sanders's 46%.[101]"

Which brings us to two other salient points that refute Lubet's analysis. First, national polls and MSNBC ignoramuses don't determine voting in the caucuses and primaries. This has been shown time and time again. Iowa and New Hampshire, Carolina, etc.

Second, the rules have changed, given the way the Dems screwed Sanders last time. This may mean more competition: we'll see.

BTW, I would have taken this post more seriously if Lubet posted it before the first debate. I don't support Biden. But to call for his withdrawing from the race, based on a 90 second hit by Harris, is sort of risible, no?

How can we take seriously off the cuff prescriptions based on internet memes and fleeting "issues" that dominate on MSNBC for a few days ? Doesn't this sort of chatter embody almost EVERYTHING that is wrong with our politics today?