Let me just say this about Joe Biden, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He would have made a fine president if he had been able to secure the Democratic nomination in 1988 or 2008, although both of his campaigns failed to generate any enthusiasm, much less actual support.
In the current electoral cycle, however, the only argument for Biden as nominee or president was his commanding lead over Donald Trump in the polls. That lead was, in turn, almost entirely the result of name recognition. As the best known of the Democratic hopefuls, Biden was picking up the support of voters who, first and foremost, simply want to get Trump out of the White House. Biden has now been damaged, and other candidates are raising their profiles among Democratic voters. With Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris gaining name recognition, can Cory Booker and Julian Castro, or maybe Kirsten Gillibrand and Jay Inslee, be far behind?
In other words, Biden's sole advantage -- name recognition -- is a wasting asset that is sure to decline in value. It would be worthless in the general election, given that no one on the planet has greater name recognition than Donald Trump.
As Biden himself said in the June 27 debate, "My time's up. I'm sorry." He needs to withdraw from the race, with everyone thanking him for his lifetime of public service, and the sooner the better.
No surprise to find Steve 100% on target! I'm tempted to advise the same for Bernie, whom I contributed to in '16. Go John Delaney!
Posted by: Dave Garrow | July 01, 2019 at 04:50 PM
Latest CNN poll suggests the asset has dissipated.
Posted by: Anon | July 01, 2019 at 05:53 PM
Steve, can you generalize this in a way that helps us apply it to other candidates? It would be valuable both for principled purposes and to avoid motivated reasoning or clumsy thinking, and because of the sheer number of candidates. I personally, given what we know of the demands of the job and the effects of age, would be perfectly happy with a categorical suggestion that any candidate over 55 or 60 should drop out. 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, for instance. But the only clear statements I find here are that he has name recognition and that he has been damaged, and for the latter reason he should drop out. So can we at least generalize your suggestion that any primary candidate whose name becomes “damaged” in a way that will affect the general (especially) or primary (I guess, at least to thin the herd quickly) should drop out? Would you agree that this is your general view or at least find it a good general view?
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | July 02, 2019 at 07:28 AM
Note that Lubet doesn't mention an issue -- ANY issue -- in the entire post. He doesn't say Biden's right or wrong on the merits of any issues, and doesn't say anything about the others' stance on any issue at all. It's all about winning at any cost. Who cares about the policies a person advocates or is likely to implement in office? 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.
Posted by: anon | July 02, 2019 at 12:44 PM