Veteran political commentator David Ignatius has a column entitled "Joe Biden is the Best Candidate to Beat Trump" but throughout the column there is not a single argument that Biden is more likely to beat Trump than anyone else. If I were to try to outline Ignatius' reasoning, it would go like this:
- Democrats should only nominate someone who can beat Trump.
- The Mueller Report shows what a shitty president Trump is.
- Biden is the most likely candidate to beat Trump.
I am completely on board with the first two premises of the piece, But it is really stunning to see how completely unsupported his third premise is. It is only in the second-to-last last sentence of the column does he get around to asserting "right now, Biden looks most like the person who could beat Trump." There is no "because." He just says it like anyone reading that will just assume that a man who is trying to be the oldest U.S. President in history, who is on the record with positions on the issues that are way out of step from most American voters, who ran two prior Presidential campaigns that were utter disasters, and who doesn't seem to have anything going for him but name recognition, or any capacity to do much to go beyond that, is somehow better than everyone else in this crowded field of talented candidates.
Biden has only two things going for him: name recognition and nostalgia for the Obama years. Neither of them are going to carry him through the nomination process.
Biden has only two things going for him: name recognition and nostalgia for the Obama years. Neither of them are going to carry him through the nomination process.
