In a fiery press conference at the White House, Trump fired barbs at reporters - as labelled the midterm results as a "tremendous success." / AP
Former US Vice-President Joe Biden said that he considers himself "the most qualified person in the country" to be president and that he would make a decision about moving forward with a 2020 bid in the next two months.
His comments came during a book-tour stop at the University of Montana at which Biden also acknowledged he has some liabilities, including being a "gaffe machine," but said none of those would scare him from running.
Biden, 76, would join what is expected to be a crowded field of Democrats, including several senators, looking to topple President Donald Trump.
"I'll be as straight with you as I can," Biden said, according to accounts from CNN and local media. " I think I'm the most qualified person in the country to be president. The issues that we face as a country today are the issues that have been in my wheelhouse, that I've worked on my whole life."
Those issues, he said, include "the plight of the middle class and foreign policy".
"Even my critics would acknowledge, I may not be right, but I know a great deal about it," added Biden, a former senator from Delaware.
Biden was interviewed by author and television personality Bruce Feiler, who ticked off some potential liabilities of another Biden campaign. Among them: his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee during the Anita Hill hearings, his co-sponsorship of the 1994 crime bill that many Democrats have long since repudiated and his reputation as a "gaffe machine".
"I am a gaffe machine, but my God what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can't tell the truth," Biden said, referring to Trump. "I'm ready to litigate all those things. The question is what kind of nation are we becoming? What are we going to do? Who are we?"
He added: "Whether or not I run, whoever runs, I'm going to break my neck to make sure they win. We can't have four more years."
Biden said he would confer with his family in coming weeks about whether to run.
Trump has said he would welcome a challenge from Biden. During a CBS interview over the summer, the President said running against Biden would be "a dream," claiming that Barack Obama "took him out of the garbage heap" to make him his running mate in 2008.
Biden unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988 and in 2008, both times dropping out after poor showings.
That was evidence, Trump said, that Biden "by himself could never do anything".
There is only one decision that really makes a difference: Will former Vice-President Joe Biden run? He's in some sense the linchpin for the race, and certainly for those Democrats more ideologically centrist.
Now let's start with the clear possibility he could run and lose in the primary to a fresh upstart.
That was precisely what happened in 2008 when novice Senator Barack Obama, beat the overwhelming, establishment favourite with a huge money and organisation advantage at the beginning of the race.
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.
Right now Biden has universal name recognition (hence he leads in silly, early polls). If he did enter, he would instantly drain the well of "establishment" money and scoop up Clinton-Obama era staff. However, after months on the trail and numerous debates those advantages could well dissipate. In short, he's far from a slam-dunk if he decides to run.
If Biden does run, it would be hard slogging for someone pitching the same working-class message (e.g. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio) and those who are more moderate (e.g. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Michael Bloomberg).
In that case the race may boil down to Biden versus the winner of the progressives' mini-primary. Biden would act as a deterrent to many moderate candidates who already are uncertain of their fundraising prowess.
On the left of the party, you would likely see everyone including Congressman Beto O'Rourke, Senator Bernie Sanders, billionaire activist Tom Steyer and Senator Elizabeth Warren, try to be the last man or woman standing, eager to go up against Biden as the race narrows from dozens (potentially) to just a few contenders.
Incidentally, it's going to be hard for one progressive to distinguish himself or herself from the others. Sanders and Warren may divide up the anti-Wall Street, not-embarrassed-to-identify-as-socialists group while Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand, would battle for those who think a blue-state senator is the answer to their worries.
At 71, Dan Quayle has been out of office for 25 years... and he is younger than the two Democrats who lead early polls of the 2020 nomination. Biden is 76, Sanders is 77.
The one who may win in such a crowded race, as in the 2016 GOP primary, may be the one who has no equivalent in the field. (There's a reason why Beto is getting so much attention). Being different helps in a very large field.
Anyhow, getting back to Biden, if he wins and goes up against President Donald Trump (or, if lightning strikes, Vice-President Pence or another contender), you'll have the battle of the septuagenarians.
For many Democrats, that would seem like they are sacrificing a possible advantage of a younger nominee who'd be easier to relate to and could paint Trump as an out-of-it fuddy-duddy. Questions about both candidates' health and longevity would be highly relevant.
However, if Biden does not run - and for a 76-year-old with the chance to provide his family with economic security, free from the campaign trail grind, who'd blame him if he passed? - then candidates of all ideological shades will flood into the race.
The Democratic Party will undergo an ideological debate, but with so many candidates saying very similar things, the race may boil down to the question of which candidate connects emotionally with voters and is perceived as capable of beating Trump.
Calm, reasoned and reliable, Senator Amy Klobuchar is considering a run for president. Will her brand of "Minnesota nice" work in 2020? https://t.co/0K3B13Bj9S
I would caution the Democrats that those are two very different things, and if the imperative is to get rid of Trump, they'd be wise to take someone a little less dreamy if he/she can beat Trump.
The worst of all worlds from the point of view of the Democratic Party may be if Biden delays his decision or says he's out, but sounds occasionally like he might get back in.
That's a recipe for paralysis, as staff and donors hold out until they are certain one way or another if Biden will run.
In short, in the next few months, Biden's decision is about the only critical factor. On his decision, the nomination and the future of the country may well turn.
He should, for the sake of his party and the country, decide sooner rather than later.
While I've met one or two modest politicians in my day, as a general rule the job requires one to cast off any qualms about tooting one's own horn.
Biden's statement raises an interesting question: What exactly does it mean to be "qualified" for the presidency, and how much should qualifications matter? As they consider the dozens of candidates running in 2020, Democrats are going to have to give it some thought.
On first blush, Biden is probably correct that he's the most qualified person in the country. He was a senator for 36 years and a vice-president for eight - and he was extremely good at the latter job, even though most of what he did happened outside the spotlight. The only person with a more complete set of qualifications is Hillary Clinton, but she won't be running.
The trouble for Biden is that qualifications don't actually get you elected, which was true even before 46 per cent of the voters made Donald Trump the president.
They might get you a hearing, but once you're out on the trail they don't count for much. What will probably keep Biden from the presidency is the fact that he's not a very good candidate, as he showed twice before when he mounted failed runs for the White House.
And now more than ever, qualifications seem beside the point.
Barack Obama demonstrated that if you're compelling enough, you don't need to have logged a certain number of years in the legislative or executive trenches to be a serious candidate.
California Senator Kamala Harris.
He started running about two years after his election to the Senate. His success gave permission to people like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to mount presidential campaigns with modest resumes. And this year, we're talking seriously about candidates like Kamala Harris, who just got to the Senate herself.
But it's possible to be "qualified" even if you haven't been a governor or spent a lot of time in Congress.
You can make a good case that things like strong relationships in Congress or experience in foreign affairs are helpful to be a successful president, but neither is necessary nor sufficient.
The presidency presents unique challenges that are so hard to prepare for that it may be that personal qualities like thoughtfulness and judgment are more important.
Think about it this way: Would Donald Trump be a better president if before taking office he had the first clue how government worked? Perhaps, but he'd still be Donald Trump.
His character faults - his impulsiveness, his xenophobia, his need for ego massage - would still determine the choices he makes, with most of the same effects. He'd still be just as corrupt and just as dishonest.
The Democrats’ Hispanic Problem
To beat Trump in 2020, the party will almost certainly need Florida voters who didn’t turn out for Bill Nelson or Andrew Gillum. What went wrong, and can they fix it? https://t.co/DACxqS5xbj
Or imagine Trump wins a second term. At that point he'd have more experience at being president than all but two living Americans. But do you think that the benefit of that experience would make him more competent, less erratic, or more skilled in a second term than he has been in his first?
So to a degree it's perfectly proper for Democratic voters to not bother worrying about qualifications as they assess potential nominees.
The trouble is that setting aside the CVs often means not thinking at all about the job a president has to do.
Now granted, the presidency isn't just about effective management.
We also have ideological preferences, and you might say you prefer someone who will pursue policies you agree with even if they might not be hyper-competent, rather than someone who is more competent but whom you'll disagree with more often.
This was essentially the position of Bernie Sanders voters two years ago. I doubt many of them would have said that Hillary Clinton wasn't the more qualified candidate; it's just that they preferred what Sanders was advocating.
“It will ultimately be a family decision,” the California Democrat said https://t.co/3WKSwlD6xc
There's another element too, a hard-to-define quality that attracts us to candidates: charisma. And once we feel that attraction, we decide that they'd be great at being president.
In a perfectly rational world it might work the other way around: First we decide who'd perform the job best, and then our affection for that candidate would grow. But not in this world.
For instance, after mounting a surprisingly strong run against Senator Ted Cruz, many people said Beto O'Rourke should run for president, and they're still saying it. But why is that? It isn't that as a member of Congress he showed some kind of skill set that suggests he could shepherd a progressive policy agenda into law.
Ask 10 Beto fans what his ideas about foreign policy are, and they'd probably be unable to tell you. By the same token, the fact that he lost to Cruz doesn't speak to whether he'd be a good president either; had he got a couple more per cent of the vote he'd be the same person.
But he's an eloquent and unhesitating advocate for progressive ideas, which not all Democrats are. He can give an inspiring speech. He's easy on the eyes (don't tell yourself it doesn't help).
In short, he has charisma, which is pretty rare even among politicians whose career success is built on drawing people to them. Many compare O'Rourke to Obama, and some of Obama's former aides are offering him help.
When people say O'Rourke reminds them of Obama, what they're saying is that he just gives them a feeling, a feeling of being excited and inspired and hopeful.
Maybe O'Rourke does that for you, and maybe not. Maybe Elizabeth Warren does it for you, or maybe Kamala Harris, or maybe one of the other candidates. But while it has connections to logic, it's mostly emotional. It's also possible to create that feeling in a powerful way in a good number of people, then wind up falling short (as Howard Dean could tell you).
The primaries will reveal things about all these candidates, things impossible to predict at this early stage. But unfortunately for Joe Biden, qualifications aren't going to be enough.
