PDF Summary:Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson

In June 2024, many Americans were shocked by President Joe Biden’s poor debate performance against Donald Trump. But according to CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, that shock was the result of a systematic deception. In Original Sin, they argue that Biden’s cognitive and physical deterioration had been concealed from the public for years by his inner circle, family, and the broader Democratic establishment.

Based on interviews with more than 200 sources, the authors contend that Biden’s decline began long before the debate—and that this alleged cover-up represents one of the most consequential political deceptions in recent American history. Our guide covers their findings about Biden’s condition, how it was concealed, and how the truth’s emergence led to political disaster—while exploring the psychology of aging under extreme stress and how the demanding nature of the modern presidency creates unique challenges for older leaders.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: Donilon had financial incentives to keep Biden in the race despite the polling data: Donilon was paid $4 million for his campaign work and would have received a $4 million bonus if Biden won. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision made such payments possible by allowing unlimited spending through independent expenditure-only political action committees, also called super PACs, and removing many campaign finance restrictions. While campaigns can compensate staff however they choose, and “win bonuses” aren’t uncommon, the scale of Donilon’s potential payout was extraordinary, and some former Biden aides have argued that Donilon’s financial motive and loyalty to Biden led the party into political disaster.)

The authors also report that Biden’s team prevented him from taking cognitive tests that might have provided objective evidence of his condition. Despite medical recommendations that people over 65 receive regular cognitive assessments, Biden’s personal physician refused to conduct such tests, arguing that he saw Biden daily and could monitor his condition informally. According to Tapper and Thompson, this decision was part of a broader strategy to avoid creating any official documentation of Biden’s limitations.

(Shortform note: According to medical experts, cognitive screening should be routine for older adults, particularly those in high-stress, high-responsibility positions. Controlled cognitive tests, which measure specific domains like working memory, processing speed, and executive function, can identify and document declines in functioning that aren’t obvious in everyday conversations. Studies indicate that even subtle cognitive changes—the kind that might not be apparent in routine interactions—can be significant predictors of functional decline. The fact that Biden’s physician argued he could monitor the president’s condition through observation, rather than objective testing, goes against standard medical practice for adults in this age group.)

Biden’s Team Restricted Access to Him

Tapper and Thompson document how Biden’s team limited access to the president to prevent people from witnessing Biden’s condition firsthand. The authors describe how Cabinet secretaries and senior staff were briefed by the inner circle rather than being allowed to interact directly with Biden. When officials did have direct contact with Biden and expressed concerns about his condition, they were told he was fine and that their observations were mistaken or taken out of context.

(Shortform note: The tension between protecting a leader and maintaining transparency isn’t new to politics—or popular culture. Aaron Sorkin explored this dilemma in The West Wing, where fictional President Josiah Bartlet conceals his multiple sclerosis diagnosis while running for reelection, and his circle grapples with whether they’ve deceived voters by hiding his condition. Sorkin noted the parallels with Biden’s situation, but he also argued that if Bartlet’s opponent had posed what his party saw as an existential threat to democracy, he would have stepped aside for whoever had the best chance of defeating that opponent—as he suggested Biden do for Sorkin’s own counterintuitive choice of candidate, Mitt Romney.)

Biden’s team also changed the nature of traditionally informal interactions. Teleprompters became essential even for small fundraising events with just 40 or 50 people—situations where politicians traditionally speak extemporaneously. Some donors became uncomfortable when Biden would simply read from prepared remarks and leave without the expected informal conversations. When concerns were raised about these changes, the authors report, they were dismissed as part of a new, more strategic approach to political communication.

Physical access to Biden was also limited through what the authors describe as “protective choreography.” Staff would walk beside him to catch him if he fell, guide him through events, and ensure he used shorter stairs and more stable pathways. While these measures were ostensibly for his safety, the authors argue they also served to limit spontaneous interactions that might reveal his condition.

Public Expectations for Presidential Health

Historical precedent suggests that US presidents have long managed serious health conditions with significant accommodations kept from public view. President John F. Kennedy is one example: Despite living with Addison’s disease, chronic back pain, and multiple other ailments that required him to take as many as 12 different medications simultaneously, Kennedy projected an image of youthful vitality throughout his presidency. His limitations were profound: He often couldn’t bend over to tie his shoes and required help getting up stairs. Yet he maintained his public image through strategic accommodations: careful scheduling, physical supports like back braces, and controlled public appearances.

The comparison raises questions about our expectations for presidents’ health (and their public performances of health). In her analysis of illness as metaphor, Susan Sontag argues that modern societies have developed powerful cultural narratives about what illness means—not just medically, but morally and politically. When we demand that leaders be perpetually ready for unscripted interactions, we may be imposing an unrealistic standard that forces them to conceal their problems rather than receive reasonable accommodations. Perhaps the real issue isn’t whether people with health limitations can occupy political offices, but whether we can acknowledge those limits while still maintaining effective governance.

Biden’s Team Attacked His Critics

Tapper and Thompson document how, when protective measures failed to prevent concerns about his fitness from emerging, Biden’s team attacked those who raised questions about his fitness. The authors describe this as a strategy to discredit critics and create disincentives for others to speak out. An example was the treatment of Special Counsel Robert Hur, whose investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents included observations about his memory and cognitive state. Rather than addressing Hur’s findings, the White House portrayed him as a partisan actor, despite his careful approach to the investigation. This campaign was so effective that Hur was unable to find work for months after his report was released.

(Shortform note: Hur, a Republican prosecutor appointed by Trump and later selected as special counsel, concluded that Biden shouldn’t be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents, but described him as “a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” to explain why a jury likely wouldn’t convict him. His report was written for the Attorney General as a legal document, not as a public political statement, but the White House immediately attacked him as partisan, a strategy that drew more media attention to Biden’s mental fitness and created a prolonged news cycle about the president’s age. When transcripts of Hur’s Biden interview were released, they largely supported his characterizations, undermining the White House’s credibility.)

The authors also document how journalists who reported on Biden’s age or raised questions about his fitness were subjected to harsh criticism from the administration and its allies. Reporters were accused of advancing Republican talking points or promoting ageist stereotypes. The administration used the concept of “cheapfakes”—misleadingly edited videos—to dismiss any unflattering footage of Biden, even when the full context didn’t change the concerning nature of his behavior.

(Shortform note: “Cheapfakes” are a form of media used to spread disinformation. “Cheapfakes” take footage out of context, speed it up, slow it down, or manipulate it with easily accessible software, as opposed to “deepfakes,” which use AI tools to alter videos and fabricate a false representation of a person or event. Tapper and Thompson don’t report any claims from the White House that deepfakes were used against Biden—only cheapfakes.)

Democratic politicians who raised concerns faced similar treatment. The authors describe how Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who attempted to challenge Biden in the primary partly due to concerns about Biden’s fitness, was systematically marginalized and kept off the ballots in various states. When other Democrats privately expressed concerns, they were told they were essentially helping Trump and undermining the party’s chances of preventing an authoritarian takeover.

(Shortform note: Jon Stewart experienced intense backlash from Democrats in early 2024 for joking about Biden’s age. Dean Phillips faced similar treatment when he mounted a primary challenge partly due to concerns about Biden’s fitness. Stewart later argued that the institutional pressure to stay silent created a coverup that ultimately failed because everyone was aware of Biden’s condition—polls consistently showed that a majority of voters thought Biden was too old to run again. When Tapper and Thompson’s book was released, Stewart criticized them for waiting until after the election to report this information, arguing it was “weird” for journalists to sell books about news “they should have told you was news a year ago, for free.”)

Institutional Failures Enabled the Cover-Up

Tapper and Thompson argue that broader institutional failures let the cover-up continue. For example, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) changed primary rules in ways that benefited Biden, moving South Carolina to the first position on the primary calendar. While this was ostensibly done to elevate Black voters, the authors report that DNC officials admitted the main motivation was helping Biden, since South Carolina was one of his stronger states.

Understanding the DNC’s Nomination Process

The Democratic Party had multiple pathways to replace Biden as the nominee, but the party’s post-1968 reforms to its nomination process made using these pathways politically difficult, if not practically impossible. When voters participate in Democratic primaries—a series of state-level elections the party holds six to nine months before a general election—they’re not directly voting for a presidential candidate. Instead, they’re voting for delegates (party activists, local officials, and committed supporters) who pledge to support that candidate at the convention. Before the 1970s, this system worked differently: Party leaders controlled the selection of delegates, and only about 38% of delegates were chosen by primaries.

This system emerged from the chaos of the 1968 election, when anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy won 39% of primary votes but Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination by working behind the scenes with party leaders. The disconnect outraged activists, so the party created new rules requiring delegates to “fairly reflect” the preferences of primary voters, rather than those of the party leaders. In the decades following these reforms, the proportion of delegates chosen by binding primaries more than doubled, from 40% in 1968 to 94% by 2020. However, party rules still technically allow for nominee changes should the need arise.

In 2024, Biden was just the presumptive nominee until delegates voted at the convention, and delegates remained “pledged, not bound” to their candidate, a loophole for extraordinary circumstances. But using this loophole would have required thousands of delegates to revolt against a sitting president from their own party. The DNC’s talking points at the time suggested it wouldn’t have been possible to replace Biden, even though party rules provided clear rules for replacing a nominee and ensuring an orderly transition in the event a replacement was necessary. Ultimately, the reforms designed to democratize the party left leadership without a realistic way to manage a fitness crisis when it arose.

The authors suggest this institutional failure extended to Congress, where Democratic leadership remained silent about Biden’s condition. They argue that senators and representatives who had witnessed Biden’s decline firsthand chose party loyalty over their constitutional obligation to provide oversight of the executive branch. According to Tapper and Thompson, this combination of active deception by Biden’s inner circle and passive enablement by Democratic institutions created a system that kept the truth about Biden’s condition from reaching the public until it was too late to prevent the political disaster that followed.

(Shortform note: Congressional Democrats’ silence about Biden’s condition reflects a pattern where many Americans prioritize party loyalty over democratic principles, choosing to defend their political in-group even when doing so conflicts with their values. Neuroscientist Leor Zmigrod’s The Ideological Brain reveals why this happens: When we adopt strong ideological positions, our brains shift activity away from regions responsible for complex decision-making toward areas that govern emotional responses. This impairs our ability to process evidence effectively and recognize errors in our reasoning, helping explain why even lawmakers who’d witnessed Biden’s limitations struggled to question their loyalty to him.)

The authors also describe how the media, despite some critical coverage, failed to investigate Biden’s condition thoroughly. This failure was partly due to access restrictions—Biden conducted fewer interviews and press conferences than any other recent president—but also due to a culture that made questioning his fitness seem inappropriate or partisan. Liberal media figures and Democratic politicians created an environment where even legitimate journalistic inquiry was discouraged.

(Shortform note: It’s a long-held tenet of journalism that a democracy requires informed citizens to function properly, and in this, the press serves two functions. First, it provides people with information they wouldn’t otherwise have. Second, the possibility of press scrutiny changes how officials behave. There’s ongoing debate about how dramatic the press’s impact on public opinion is, yet this may miss the point: Journalism’s proponents argue that the press’s power lies less in changing how people think about an issue and more in bringing information to light and creating the structural pressure that keeps officials accountable.)

The Consequences

Tapper and Thompson argue that despite the elaborate system designed to protect the president from scrutiny, the truth about Biden’s condition couldn’t be hidden indefinitely, and when it finally emerged, the consequences were catastrophic for the Democratic Party. The June 2024 debate exposed Biden’s decline in a way that couldn’t be explained away or controlled, starting a cascade of events that led to his withdrawal from the race and enabled Trump’s return to the presidency. In this section, we’ll trace the sequence of events from the debate through Biden’s withdrawal, examine the rushed Harris campaign that followed, and explore how the authors connect these events to Trump’s electoral victory.

The Debate Disaster

Tapper and Thompson recount that the June 27, 2024 debate was the moment when Biden’s carefully managed public image finally collapsed. The debate had been scheduled early in the campaign season partly because Biden’s team believed it would give them time to recover if things went poorly—a calculation that, according to the authors, revealed the team’s awareness of the risks involved. Tapper had firsthand experience of the debate, serving as co-moderator alongside CNN’s Dana Bash. Biden arrived late to the venue, having initially refused to do a walkthrough that every other candidate routinely performs, which the authors characterize as a sign of overconfidence despite his limitations.

What Happened at the Debate?

The June 27, 2024 debate took place at CNN’s Atlanta studios, moderated by anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. The format was designed to give each candidate the best opportunity to make their case: There was no live audience, candidates had two minutes to answer questions with one minute for rebuttals, and—crucially—microphones were muted when it wasn’t a candidate’s turn to speak. The Biden campaign had specifically requested the muted microphones to prevent Trump from interrupting, as he’d done repeatedly in their 2020 debates. The moderators took a hands-off approach, rarely fact-checking false statements or pressing the candidates to answer questions more fully.

Despite these favorable conditions, Biden’s performance was poor. His voice was hoarse and raspy, he frequently lost his train of thought mid-sentence, and he stumbled over basic words and facts. In one early moment, while trying to discuss health care policy, Biden trailed off incoherently, ending with “we finally beat Medicare.” He appeared to confuse Trump with Putin when discussing Ukraine and seemed to mix up immigration and abortion issues. His mouth often hung open while Trump spoke, and he appeared unfocused throughout much of the evening. The contrast with his more energetic performance just four years earlier was stark, leading many observers to conclude this was evidence of significant decline.

The authors report that Biden’s performance was immediately recognized as disastrous by those watching behind the scenes. According to their account, this wasn’t a bad night or the result of a cold, as Biden’s team later claimed, but rather the natural result of putting someone with serious cognitive limitations in an uncontrolled, high-pressure situation. Tapper and Thompson contend the debate’s impact on Biden’s public perception was so severe because it contradicted the carefully constructed narrative about his fitness to run for reelection. Many viewers, including Democrats who’d been willing to give Biden the benefit of the doubt, could no longer rationalize what they were seeing and were shaken by his performance.

(Shortform note: The authors’ emphasis on the narrative surrounding Biden is emblematic of a larger trend in American politics: namely, that individual policy issues have become less important than overarching political narratives. The immediate recognition of how badly Biden was performing in the debate shows how quickly such narratives can collapse. Biden had defined himself by being “not Trump", implying that that alone made him the more qualified candidate. His poor performance cast that in doubt, and replaced the old narrative with a new one: that the Democrats were a party in turmoil while their opponents’ messaging remained consistent and confident during the following news cycle.)

The Pressure Campaign

Tapper and Thompson document that Biden’s inner circle tried to control the damage. The campaign blamed external factors—Biden had a cold, he was tired from travel, it was just an off night. But pressure began building from multiple directions. First came the donors who had been kept at arm’s length. George Clooney, who had seen Biden’s decline at the fundraiser, felt that the debate confirmed what he had seen privately. Clooney wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling for Biden to step down, arguing that he couldn’t effectively serve another term. Other major donors and Democratic figures began speaking out after Clooney broke the silence.

(Shortform note: The pressure against Biden was intensified by the media’s disproportionately negative coverage, which exposed how differently Americans saw Biden and Trump: When Trump spoke incoherently, audiences saw it as passionate or as part of his “chaotic” style, but when Biden did the same, they saw it as evidence of cognitive decline. In the week after the debate, The New York Times published 192 stories about Biden’s age, but fewer than half as many about Trump, who was only 3.5 years younger than Biden. Before the debate, two-thirds of stories about candidates’ mental acuity focused exclusively on Biden, while only 7% focused exclusively on Trump.)

Next came pressure from Democratic members of Congress, who faced the reality that they might lose their own elections if Biden remained on the ticket. Tapper and Thompson explain that many legislators suddenly found themselves under pressure from constituents and colleagues and privately expressed their concerns to party leadership. Finally, senior Democratic leaders applied pressure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer worked behind the scenes to convince Biden to step down—though they were careful to avoid public criticism that might appear disloyal or destructive to the party.

The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis Made Biden’s Position Untenable

The sequence in which pressure built against Biden, from donors to Congress members to party leadership, reflected the Democratic party’s struggle to position itself. Since the 1970s, it’s transformed from a working-class party into a coalition of competing interests, espousing everything from finance-friendly fiscal policies to progressive redistributionism. The party’s critics assert that the preferences of the party’s current professional-class base conflict with those of working-class voters, who have drifted toward Republicans.

Critics also point out that in 2024, the Democratic party couldn’t decide whether it stood for or against the status quo. Wealthy donors, many of whom had joined the party after Trump’s disruption of traditional conservatism, expected stable leadership that could maintain their interests. Congressional Democrats worried about losing both professional-class suburban supporters and working-class constituents. Senior leaders like Pelosi and Schumer tried to hold together a coalition that lacked a clear, unifying vision beyond opposing Trump. The speed with which this coalition fractured after the debate exposed the underlying precarity of the party’s position—and what critics saw as its difficulty determining how to move forward.

Biden’s Withdrawal

Tapper and Thompson write that two key factors ultimately convinced Biden to withdraw from the race. The first was Chuck Schumer’s revelation about the lack of Senate support: Schumer told Biden that in a meeting between Democratic senators and Biden’s top aides, only five out of 51 Democratic senators still supported Biden’s candidacy. This information shocked Biden, who took it to mean that his inner circle hadn’t been honest with him about the extent of the opposition within his own party.

(Shortform note: The quick collapse of Biden’s viability as a candidate illustrates how the systems meant to shield him from negative information also kept him from making informed decisions about his future. Schumer had been concerned about Biden’s electability for months, sometimes receiving calls where Biden forgot why he had called. Yet Schumer felt trapped: If he expressed his concerns privately, they might leak and weaken Biden’s chances, but staying silent enabled the problem to continue. Even during the crisis, Schumer publicly vouched for Biden while privately gathering polling data and urging senators not to act. The debate forced conversations that Schumer later said should have happened earlier.)

The second decisive factor came from DNC manager Minyon Moore, who’d established a “What If Committee” to prepare for various contingencies, including the possibility that Biden’s nomination might be challenged. This committee had been monitoring delegate sentiment and warned Biden’s team that while he could still win the nomination, it would require an ugly floor fight. Tapper and Thompson report Biden’s decision to withdraw was driven by his realization that staying in the race would require a bitter battle that would split the party. He accepted that the political cost of remaining had become too high, though he continued to believe that he could have won the election if he’d stayed in the race.

(Shortform note: Moore was responsible for orchestrating a four-day television production meant to unite the party around a presidential candidate, a task that typically involves months of careful choreography around a known nominee. But Moore had to prepare contingencies for multiple scenarios simultaneously, including assessing the possibility that Biden’s nomination might be contested at the convention, which hadn’t happened in the Democratic Party since 1968. Given her decades of experience managing Democratic politics, Moore was uniquely positioned to present Biden with the reality of the situation ahead of the convention: Step aside gracefully or risk the kind of chaos that could fracture the party regardless of who won.)

The Harris Campaign’s Impossible Task

Tapper and Thompson argue that Kamala Harris’s elevation to the top of the ticket was doomed by the circumstances of her nomination. She inherited the baggage of the Biden administration, including voter concerns about the economy, immigration, and foreign policy—with only 107 days to define herself as a candidate and distance herself from an unpopular administration. She was also constrained by her loyalty to Biden and her role as his vice president. She couldn’t fully embrace Biden’s unpopular record, but she also couldn’t repudiate it without undermining her own position. This prevented Harris from effectively addressing voter concerns about the Biden administration’s performance.

(Shortform note: The 107-day constraint wasn’t necessarily fatal—Harris’s campaign mobilized hundreds of thousands of volunteers and generated massive fundraising numbers—but made it difficult for Harris to overcome the double standard she faced against Trump specifically. While Harris was expected to demonstrate substantive policy knowledge, articulate comprehensive plans, and thread the needle between defending Biden’s record and establishing her own platform, Trump succeeded by simply projecting an image of confidence as a political outsider who nonetheless had figured out everything he needed to know to govern effectively.)

The rushed nature of Harris’s campaign also prevented the kind of rigorous preparation that normally occurs during a full primary process. Tapper and Thompson suggest that Harris’s own limitations as a candidate, which had been apparent during her failed 2020 primary campaign, remained problematic. She continued to struggle with unscripted interactions and policy discussions, leading to a campaign that relied heavily on celebrity endorsements and scripted events rather than substantive policy debates.

The Primary Process: Building Voter Buy-In

Tapper and Thompson argue that Harris was doomed partly because she missed the preparation that goes with participating in the primary. But the deeper issue may be that primaries don’t just prepare candidates—they build voter acceptance and enthusiasm that Harris missed the chance to earn. Experts note that presidential primaries serve a crucial legitimacy function: They convince a party’s voters to embrace their nominee through a democratic process.

Even when voters’ preferred candidate loses the primary, they’ve had time to see their eventual nominee tested, refined, and validated through months of campaigning, debates, and questioning. Primaries force candidates to refine their messages under pressure, prove they can unify groups with different political motivations, and earn broad acceptance from voters—exactly the kind of validation that could have built genuine voter confidence in Harris, rather than necessitating voters’ acceptance of her as Biden’s appointed successor. But Harris got the nomination without anyone having voted for her in the primary.

This meant the nomination felt like it was “less democratic” than it should have been. Many voters believed the decision to replace Biden with Harris had been made by party elites, and voters already skeptical of political establishments saw her nomination as confirmation that ordinary citizens have little say in the process. One analysis observed that the support around Harris came together so rapidly that it raised questions about whether other candidates even had an opportunity to compete.

The Ultimate Consequences

Tapper and Thompson conclude that Biden’s decision to run for reelection led to Trump’s victory. They argue that if Biden had announced after the 2022 midterms that he wouldn’t seek reelection, the Democratic Party could have held a proper primary. This could have produced a candidate who wasn’t burdened by the Biden administration’s unpopularity or the questions about age and fitness that had dominated the conversation. Democratic officials believed that Biden’s selfishness and his inner circle’s enablement had handed the presidency back to Trump.

(Shortform note: Political analysts offer mixed perspectives on whether Trump’s victory could have been prevented. Writing in April 2024, Chris Stirewalt observed that polling data suggested Trump wasn’t gaining new voters but that Biden was losing his 2020 supporters, making it Biden’s election to lose rather than Trump’s to win. After the election, analyst Nate Silver (The Signal and the Noise) argued that the outcome wasn’t predetermined: He suggested a more moderate Democratic candidate like Josh Shapiro or Gretchen Whitmer might have performed 1.5 to 2.5 points better than Harris, enough to potentially change the result. In January 2025, Silver argued more directly that Trump might have lost if Biden had exited the race earlier.)

Beyond the immediate electoral consequences, the authors argue that the alleged cover-up damaged the Democratic Party’s credibility and undermined public trust in democratic institutions. They suggest that the party’s insistence that Biden was fully capable of serving, followed by his obvious failure at the debate, created a broader crisis of confidence that extended beyond the presidential race. Tapper and Thompson conclude that the “original sin” of Biden’s decision to run again, combined with the systematic effort to conceal his limitations, represents not just a political miscalculation but a fundamental failure of democratic accountability that had far-reaching consequences for American politics and governance.

Were Voters Really Surprised by the Debate?

Tapper and Thompson argue that the alleged concealment of Biden’s decline damaged Democratic credibility and represented a failure of democratic accountability. But extensive polling and media coverage suggests that Americans weren’t actually deceived about Biden’s condition—concerns about his age and fitness were openly discussed long before the June 2024 debate. Even during the 2020 campaign, journalists were already asking whether he was “too old” to serve, with major outlets regularly examining his “physical stamina” and “verbal skills.” By 2022, polls showed 61% of Democrats wanted someone other than Biden to be the presidential nominee, with age as the top reason.

Throughout 2023 and early 2024, majorities of Americans (and majorities of Democrats) consistently told pollsters Biden was too old for a second term. These numbers remained stable: Polls showed 74% of Americans and 60% of Democrats agreeing Biden was “too old to work in government” in January 2024. Rather than revealing hidden information, the debate may have simply confirmed what voters already suspected. One poll found the share of Americans calling Biden’s age a “big problem” didn’t even increase after the debate—it was 56% before and 56% after—suggesting that concerns had plateaued.

Some observers noted a distinction: Biden’s age appeared to be more of a campaign problem than a governing problem. A former Biden administration official said that officials inside the White House, as well as political opponents like Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, saw Biden as effective and competent. This suggests that rather than hiding Biden’s governing limitations from voters, Democrats may have been deceiving themselves about his electability.