-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.
This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.
The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.
It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”
Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.
In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.
And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.
That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.
Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.
“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”
That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.
Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.
Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.
That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.
In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author argues that Biden fundamentally betrayed his 2020 campaign promise to serve as a “bridge” to the next generation of Democratic leaders, transforming from a transitional figure into an obstacle that blocked emerging talent. During a March 2020 Detroit campaign event, Biden explicitly positioned himself as a one-term candidate, standing alongside Harris, Cory Booker, and Gretchen Whitmer while declaring he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else.”
The decision to seek reelection in April 2023 effectively stifled the Democratic Party’s natural succession process, preventing figures like Gavin Newsom, who had already begun positioning for a presidential run with a $10 million PAC transfer in March 2023. This created an artificial bottleneck that compressed what should have been a full primary campaign into Harris’s abbreviated 107-day sprint after Biden’s withdrawal.
Harris’s memoir excerpt reveals troubling internal dynamics within the Biden administration, suggesting that Biden loyalists actively worked against her success as vice president, creating additional obstacles beyond the shortened campaign timeline. These revelations provide crucial insight into the chaotic political environment that ultimately contributed to the Democratic defeat.
The author contends that Biden’s political vulnerabilities were evident well before his disastrous June 2024 debate performance, with approximately 75% of voters already considering him too old for effective leadership, compounded by his perceived unconditional support for Netanyahu in Gaza. These factors demonstrate that the electoral challenges preceded Harris’s nomination and stemmed from Biden’s decision to continue rather than step aside earlier.
Different views on the topic
Former Biden administration officials have pushed back strongly against Harris’s account, with one aide dismissing her perspective by stating “No one wants to hear your pity party,” suggesting that her memoir unfairly shifts blame away from campaign missteps and toward administrative dynamics[1]. This response indicates significant disagreement within Democratic circles about the primary causes of the 2024 electoral defeat.
Biden’s economic stewardship has defenders who point to substantial job creation during his presidency, even accounting for recent statistical revisions that reduced the job creation total from 16.1 million to approximately 15.2 million positions[1]. Economic analysts note that despite the 911,000-job downward revision, this still represents significant employment growth and improved productivity metrics that could benefit long-term economic prospects[1].
Some economists emphasize that the Bureau of Labor Statistics revision process, while producing an unusually large correction, followed transparent methodologies used for decades and reflects normal statistical refinement rather than fundamental economic mismanagement[1]. These perspectives suggest that focusing on data revisions may obscure broader economic achievements during the Biden administration.
Alternative economic analyses defend Biden’s record by contrasting it favorably with Trump’s previous tenure, noting that Trump’s policies reduced corporate tax receipts to nearly 75-year lows and contributed to increased wealth concentration among the top 1% of earners[2]. These arguments position Biden’s economic approach as more beneficial for working-class Americans despite inflation challenges and statistical revisions.
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In 2005, there was no bigger show in L.A. than USC football. The players were household names, celebrities crowded the sidelines, and the wins kept piling up — until Texas came to town.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
