The delusional Joe Biden

In an interview with Joe Biden, USA Today’s Susan Page asked two questions. The first was “Do you believe you could have won in November?” Biden answered, “I think yes.” Later, he told a pool of reporters that he would (not just could) have beaten Trump.

Page’s second question was “Do you think you would’ve had the vigor to serve another four years in office?” Biden answered, “I don’t know.”

Biden’s second answer rebuts his first. If even Biden can’t say he would be vigorous enough to serve a second term, how could the American people be expected to elect him to serve it?

Dan Balz, the Washington Post’s senior political writer, takes up the questions of Biden’s capacity to serve and the electorate’s willingness to give him that opportunity in this column. On the first question, Balz makes an admission against interest of his newspaper and his profession. He writes:

As to the president’s capacities, however, the differences between the Biden who is preparing to leave office in little more than a week and the Biden of four or eight years ago are evident to all who watch him.

The differences must have been almost as evident six months ago. Yet, the mainstream media uncritically reported absurd claims by Biden supporters like Kamala Harris that the president is as sharp as a tack.

Congratulations to the mainstream media. It helped fabricate the dominant story of Trump’s first years in office — his alleged collusion with Russia — and helped bury the most important story of Biden’s final years in office — his sharply diminished capacity.

On the question of Biden’s prospects in a race against Trump, Balz is politely dismissive:

Harris’s defeat was due not only to questions about her own record and positions but also to voters’ frustrations with inflation and immigration — mistakes by Biden that would have affected his candidacy had he stayed in.

On immigration, the president was slow to act. On inflation, he failed to address it directly and tried to focus voters on jobs and overall growth rather than the pain they felt from higher grocery and gas prices.

Actually, Harris’ defeat was due almost entirely to voters’ frustrations with inflation and immigration. Polls consistently showed that concerns about the state of the economy and immigration were paramount in the minds of voters — with the former being of even more concern than the latter.

To the extent that the administration was to blame for the state of the economy, the blame rested entirely on Biden. On immigration, the picture is mixed. Harris was Biden’s “immigration czar.” But it was Biden’s open border policies that led to massive amounts of illegal immigration. And it was Biden who gave Harris (or foisted on her) nominal responsibility for handling the ensuing crisis. (To say, as Balz does, that Biden was “slow to act” in response to the crisis he caused is a massive understatement.)

Unhappiness with the Biden economy and the Biden border crisis would have doomed the president’s candidacy. Throw in the widespread understanding that he lacked the mental capacity to serve, and Biden’s claim that he would have won is delusional.

To me, the interesting question isn’t whether Biden would have beaten Trump, but whether he would have run a closer race than Harris. I believe Biden would have fared worse than his vice president.

From a quantitative perspective, Harris lost the popular vote 1.5 points. When Biden dropped out, he trailed Trump by 4 points in the most recent polls.

With a better performance in a second debate, Biden might have closed the gap by a point or two. But who’s to say that Biden, with his diminished mental capacity, would have had a better second debate?

Might Biden have performed better than Harris in industrial states like Pennsylvania and Michigan? Maybe. But by 2024, the “Scranton Joe” persona was wearing very thin, given the perceived state of the economy. He was running 4 to 5 points behind Trump in polls of Pennsylvanians when he dropped out of the race. Harris lost the state by about 2 points.

In qualitative terms, voters surely held Biden more responsible than Harris for the state of the economy, though Harris’ failure to identify things she would have done differently than Biden probably closed the gap. Biden also suffered from the fiasco he orchestrated in Afghanistan. Harris had nothing to do with that. And Harris showed in her debate with Trump that she was considerably more forceful and mentally agile than the befuddled Biden.

Harris’ race and gender might have hurt her a little (I have no opinion on that). And Harris might have been a bit more vulnerable to charges of wokeism than Biden. All in all, though, I think Harris was the stronger candidate.

The final question is whether Biden spoiled the Democrats’ chances by staying in the race for so long. Balz seems to think he did.

The question has two subparts: (1) Would Harris have done better with more time and (2) Would more time have given the Dems a chance to nominate someone who could have defeated Trump.

For me, the answer to the first question is “no.” Peak-Harris occurred shortly after she entered the race. As time went on and voters got a better look, she faded in the polls.

The second question requires more speculation than one should indulge in. Clearly, more time would have made it more likely that the Dems would come up with a different nominee, but it’s far from clear that the party would have rejected Harris.

Assessing the prospects of a hypothetical alternative nominee is the height of speculation. However, the presumption should be that voters, having preferred Trump to both Biden and Harris, would have preferred him to anyone else the Democrats might have come up with.

Joe Biden believes he would have beaten Trump. Harris probably believes she would have won with more time (though I think she’s been gracious enough not to say so publicly).

Both self-serving views are wrong. Biden’s is fully detached from reality.