Resetting the Scales:

Firstly, we argue that Biden’s debate performance alone was not enough to have cost him the nomination. Rather, it was the sensationalization of Biden’s performance by the media, and the direct contrast with Trump’s cult of personality that ultimately triggered the process of reconsideration for his nomination. The New York Times previously described a phenomenon of “2 Joe Bidens”, where it alluded conventional wisdom of Biden having good days and bad days. (Vox, 2024). In the current US Media landscape, there is a perception of a shift towards adopting an attention-grabbing sensationalist frame for reported stories. This obsession with Biden’s age-old incapacities is no exception. Leading up to the debate, the media has been ruthlessly documenting every gaffe of the President, from mistaking Zelensky for Putin, looking for Rep Jackie Walorski, who had been killed in a car crash the previous month, to his perceived frequent stumblings among many. Biden, however, also had his “good days”, from a forceful outing at both the State of the Union and ironically, at a North Carolina rally the day after his disastrous debate. Unfortunately, 27 June 2024 was his worst day ever, with the consistent waves of media coverage of Biden’s “bad days" magnifying the public perception that he is indeed too old to be fit for office.

This perception is worsened when compared in stark contrast to his competitor, Donald Trump. Trump’s strongest political asset could be said to lie in his personality. The adoption of an informal voice allows him to express his strong, and often unfiltered political views with a deeply personal undertone (Jens, 2024). Married together with a communication style that stresses binary oppositions, the use of simple language, and an expressive and aggressive persona, Trump instills a commanding presence of strength that underpins his appeal (Jens, 2024). He further takes advantage of this informal, direct, and provoking tone to express his identification with the straight-talking folk and draw a contrast against the perceived “self-censoring elite” (Jens, 2024). This creates a sense of “authentic alignment” between him and his politics that enables him to portray himself as the “voice of the people”, someone who understands the struggles of the “ordinary folk” (Jens, 2024). Trump famously claimed that “I am your voice” in 2016 and subsequently added “I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.” in 2020. Such forceful displays of charisma and personality, buoyed by a sensationalist press, convey an impressively powerful image to the American public. Trump’s cult of personality dominates his politics, tactically diverting attention away from the injustices of his right-wing populist rhetoric and instead focusing on curating Trump as a “saviour” of the people. This perception was further entrenched by the assassination attempt on him leading to the 2024 Presidential Race, and the display of defiance he showed subsequently. Despite both Trump and Biden being of similar ages, the contrast between a “strong” Trump persona and a struggling Biden largely waives any public scrutiny of Trump’s old-age mental capacity in the manner that Biden has to contend with. In an election where 59% were very concerned about Biden's age compared to 18% for Donald Trump, it became increasingly clear that the debate was perhaps the last straw that sent Democrats into a panic over Biden leading them to an inevitable defeat (Gallup Poll, 2024).

As questions loom over Biden’s ability to hold on to his nomination, the Democratic base was then forced to confront another key fundamental conundrum - who is the alternative? It appears that the answer lies in Biden’s second-in-command, Vice President Kamala Harris. A Harris-Trump contest represented an opportunity for a reset, in order to wrestle back public perception in favour of the Democrats. Once again, this potential lies in the contrasts in personality and track records that draw the contours of public perception between Harris and Trump. Harris was an attorney general, closely involved in Californian criminal justice reform. Trump was a felon. Harris is 59 years old. Trump is 78. This effectively eradicated any leverage Trump’s campaign had on age. Harris is a black woman and is tipped to continue championing diversity if she becomes the historic first black, and female president of the United States. Trump is a white male, clearly embodying the conservative pick. The appeal for a Harris democratic nomination therefore lies in the sum of parts making up her identity, personality, and track record in order to fire up the democratic base, tipped to be a new “Democratic optimism” that would reset the momentum of the race in favour of the Democrats. Democrats had reasons to believe that such optimism, reminiscent of the novelty surrounding Obama’s campaign as the first black president, could be replicated with Harris. We now learn that Harris has managed to capitalize on that potential. In three days since her campaign launch, the Harris campaign raised 61 million in individual donations, in contrast to Trump’s 4 million (Reuters, 2024). In a short span of time, swing state leads in Trump’s favour have been largely overturned. For a campaign whose central strategy hinged on the obsession with attacking Biden’s personality, the replacement of Biden with Harris in the presidential race dealt a double blow to the Trump campaign. First, it rendered previous Biden-centric attack lines, particularly his age which was central to the narrative irrelevant. Second, it provided a clever disorientation that trapped the Trump campaign into a struggle against time to recover with a fresh set of cohesive attack lines against a younger and more historic candidacy. 

Despite these concerns about Biden and the advantages of a Harris nomination to the Democratic Party’s political fortunes, the move by the party to replace Biden with a Harris nomination is nevertheless a very significant and unprecedented move so late in the electoral campaign cycle. There would have been huge obstacles and stigma against this move in the Democratic Party. In the 1968 election, Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson announced his intention to not run for reelection due to deep internal party divisions over the Vietnam War and the experience deeply affected cohesion within the Democratic Party (Brehman, 2024). Democrats thus have had a stigma against a similar future move, being wary of the negative optics of party conflict associated with this spilling out into the open (Brehman, 2024). In fact, this did happen in the days before Biden stepped down (Wong, 2024). Replacing Biden with Harris resulted in a loss of the advantage of being the incumbent party in elections, as it was President Biden who had most of the control over presidential policy matters, not the Vice-President. The democrats who led the move to encourage support to replace Biden with Harris would also have to contend with Biden’s own influence as he resisted this move up till the end, not to mention the typical obstacles of bureaucratic and political elite inflexibility in the party (Mascaro, 2024). All these factors point to the likely fact that the Democrats who were for replacing Biden, such as California senator Nancy Pelosi, must have expended significant political capital and leverage within the party to push something this acrimonious. They also point to how the majority of the party eventually came around to their view, of becoming aligned in the need to win this election by replacing Biden with Harris. The question is what, though, is so important about the 2024 elections for the Democrats to be going through all this trouble?