In a rather unexpected turn of events, President-elect Donald Trump demonstrated a curious amount of restraint following Joe Biden’s less than stellar performance at the June debates. As if sensing an inevitable decline in his opposition, Trump advised his team to avoid pushing too hard. One may question if this could have been a ploy to keep an underperforming Biden in the race, thereby increasing his own chances at political survival.
This was a moment of seeming fortune for Trump, as Biden was increasingly projecting an image of faltering conviviality. Such a state of affairs gave the general public an early notice of Biden’s potential incompetency, leaving them to question their initial perceptions.
Trump and his advisors considered a damning advertising salvo, alleged to potentially be capable of disqualifying Biden entirely from contention. This was disclosed by Trump’s co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita. However, they opted for restraint from firing the said shot, reinforcing their intriguingly cautious approach.
In a game of political musical chairs, Biden then bunkered down to an oppressive force from his own camp. Fellow Democrats pressured Biden to step down, creating room for Kamala Harris to seize the nomination in August – a move that certainly carried the scent of desperation.
The pressure on Biden was substantial, and perhaps in attempt to preserve a shred of dignity, Biden had a frank discussion with his successor, Kamala Harris. Allegedly, Biden granted Harris permission to dissociate herself from his failing administration in order to save her own reputation. A classic case of every politician for themselves.
The seat of power, as embodied by Trump’s return, was deemed a larger threat by Biden and his camp than his own drastically damaged pride. It appears that political survival was the only card left to play, and defeat was all but acknowledged on Biden’s behalf.
These accounts formed just a portion of numerous insider narratives passed on at a conference held at Harvard’s Institute of Politics. The event had notable attendees from the major 2024 presidential campaigns, allowing for an interesting peek behind the curtain of political strategies and maneuvering.
Normally, such a conference signifies the end of the election cycle. This time, it was anything but normal. This election campaign blatantly deviated from the norm for a multitude of reasons, including various unprecedented incidents: An attempted nominee swap, two botched assassination attempts, hacking of campaign emails by international rivals, and an extraordinary political comeback not witnessed since the 1800s.
This unprecedented event offered the first step at chronicling a comprehensive oral history of the campaign. The primary architects of the election appeared to be grappling with the bewildering results and exceptional events leading to it.
The Harvard conference unraveled the personal touch many of these political maestros had on the election. The level of involvement of strategic individuals certainly offered a fresh, though somewhat unsettling, perspective of the entire process.
Under the tireless scrutiny of political pundits and naysayers alike, Jen O’Malley Dillon, the chair of both Biden’s and Harris’ campaigns, sounded more on the defensive. She boldly retorted, ‘We run shit like we ought to run it.’ This stance, though meant to sound decisive, personified the political agility these campaigns were forced to undertake during the turbulence.