In the US, we don't elect political parties (now famously "hollow"). And we don't elect the man, or the woman. Even in Congress, but especially as President, the job is far above the capability or judgment of one person, however old or young.

What we elect when we elect a person is that person's friends, who will become staff, advisor, appointees.

Whatever you think of the person, what matters is the people they will place around them. We choose not so much the puppet as the puppeteers.

@interfluidity right. And Biden's puppeteers are in the process of taking their hands out of his ass right now.

@Geoffberner no, i don't think so at all. i think what makes this so painful is, regardless of the state of the President himself, the group of people who surround him think (with some justice!) they are doing a great job, and understand the band would be broken up, and they personally would be unlikely to have roles nearly so influential, if there were a switch of marionettes. they, i think, are all in unless/until loss becomes nearly certain.

@interfluidity @Geoffberner If they were really sure they were doing such a great job, they wouldn't need to worry about being replaced.

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner i don’t think that’s right. there’s a huge time consistency problem in the (at best very incomplete) understanding of electoral democracy as “the public evaluates and throws the bums out if they don’t like how things are going”. lots of policy interventions take longer than an electoral cycle to meaningfully reveal results. 1/

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner if you make “selling the strategy” or “maintaining enthusiasm” as an essential dimension of quality, then, sure, tautologically, a successful administration would have nothing to fear. 2/

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner but i think good policy can often involve a long lead time, through which it may be challenging to sustain enthusiasm, while challengers can sell hopes without any plausible policy behind them. 3/

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner so i think it quite possible that an administration can be succeeding on policy grounds but remain electorally fragile. /fin

@interfluidity @Geoffberner Good policy can have a long lead time, I agree.

But that's exactly why it needs to rest on the shoulders of the party as a whole instead of a single temporary-by-definition presidential administration.

Biden's (and, more specifically, his campaign staff's) primary job is to keep his party's administrators in place long enough to carry out the party's policy, by getting (re)elected.

If he and his team can't do that, as it's increasingly seeming like they can't, then the party needs to swap them out.

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner i agree, but we can’t sustain cohesive parties in a two party system. the electorate has more to express than only two parties can sustainably stick to. in the moment, i agree with you it’d be better if we had a strong party that could change inadequate management to advance a virtuous underlying agenda. but we don’t, and can’t in a two party system, unless we really insulate the parties from the fractious public very bad for different reasons).

@interfluidity @Geoffberner That the policy changes with the coalition doesn't mean we can't still pursue the long-term goals cohesively. Most internal regime changes only shift a few issues and aren't major upheavals of the platform (R2016, obviously, being the exception to that rule).

But either way, the detriment to long-term policy from a dem regime change is dwarfed by the catastrophe of an electoral loss, and the Biden team just doesn't really seem to get that, as much lip service as they pay to it.

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner I certainly agree that, right now, it’d be best if there could be a smooth transition to a stronger candidate with a lot of policy and personnel continuity. I think that’s unusually possible right now, because the Democratic coalition is unusually unified, both against Trump, and broadly in support of Biden’s policy direction. (I don’t think that’s always the case.) 1/

@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner I don’t think the issue is that the Biden team doesn’t “get that”. Unfortunately, I think we have almost no visibility into what’s going on in the inner circles. Are they stubborn because I’m wrong, and they just do have an indefensibly high expectation of their odds? Are they held back by personal ambition, the circle around Biden loses opportunity and influence if Biden cedes, while they have ~30% change of keeping it if he doesn’t? 2/