He’s a product of a biased system. He was elected to the Senate in '72, over 50 years ago, and spent 36 years there. That long, during that time in a highly business-heavy state, would probably have been untenable for anything left of liberal. I’m not optimistic that anyone trying to be an effective politician in those circumstances for so long could have been much more progressive.

Considering all that, he got a lot of good done. But like you say, it’s easy for the media to focus on the things that generate outrage. He wasn’t a saint by any measure, but he was a decent compromise at a time when the Democrats were scared of losing the moderate votes. Him being nominated for re-election is probably a product of the political inertia that sitting and eligible presidents are rarely swapped out instead of being put up for re-election (actually, is there any precedent at all?)

Walz, by contrast, was in the House for twelve years, then governor for another five. That’s a third of Biden’s time in Congress, and much later too. I think it’s much more realistic for someone in his position to be and stay progressive, and I hope he helps pull the Overton Window to the left. I hope this election shows that there is a platform for progress, that Biden was an emergency measure for damage control and that handing the baton over to Harris and Walz was a step in the right direction.

Of course, that hinges on Harris also driving a more progressive line than Biden did, instead of resigning to another term of mediocrity. She seems to signal as much, but whether that will be followed up with deeds remains to be seen.