OK, Let's Just Get This Over With: Sizing Up the 2024 Presidential Race
PLUS: Is LeBron James the G.O.A.T.?
Somehow, someway, over the past couple weeks, the 2024 presidential campaign seems to have started. Joe Biden is said to be preparing an announcement, Donald Trump begrudgingly has taken to the campaign trail, and there is a game afoot among other potential Republican contenders about when they might officially declare their candidacies. I don’t think most Americans like the two-year presidential election calendar we’ve saddled ourselves with, but here we are, 20+ months from Election Day 2024, entering the horses into the gates.
There also seems to be little enthusiasm this time around for what seems like an inevitable match-up between the 2020 nominees, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. In a certain way, that’s kind of odd, since a greater percentage of voting-age Americans voted in that election (62.0%) than in any election since 1932 with the exception of the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon contest (62.8%). But maybe high turnout is what you can expect in an election featuring an unchained demagogue mismanaging the most serious public health crisis of the past one hundred years. Most Americans don’t appear to be in the mood for a rerun in 2024.
So before the election gets into full swing, let’s survey the state of play and see what the next year may have in store for us. This is the baseline view. Other factors—potential recessions, potential indictments, potential defaults, who knows what—will undoubtedly shape the race, but at least we’ll have a sense for its starting point.
The biggest question in the upcoming election involves the Republicans and whether or not they will re-nominate Donald Trump for president. My prediction is they will. I think Republican voters will conclude they will have a hard time winning with him as their presidential nominee but no shot at winning if he is not their nominee.
Trump has three reasons for running for president: 1.) He wants the power and has a better sense for how he might wield it this time around; 2.) He needs to vindicate his “victory” in 2020; and 3.) He senses that so long as he is a candidate, he can stave off legal prosecution, and if he wins, he can at least impede those investigations, if not make them go away. If Trump is defeated in the primaries, he won’t get the powers of the presidency and he won’t be able to vindicate his 2020 “win,” but he could still remain a candidate and run as the nominee of the MAGA Party. Such a candidacy would either push off legal prosecution for at least a few months or allow him to cast himself as a persecuted candidate.
And he would claim it wouldn’t just be the legal system, the Democrats, or the vaguely-defined DC establishment persecuting him. If he lost the GOP nomination for president, he would argue the Republican Party and Republican elites “rigged” the process against him. A third-party campaign would be a vintage Trump move: Threaten to destroy the thing you love if you don’t give him what he wants. (It’s also possible Trump would be too lazy to run a third-party campaign but refuse to endorse the Republican nominee, which could sideline his hardcore supporters.)
Even if Republicans convinced a fair share of his supporters to rally around their nominee to head-off a Democratic victory, I would guess there would still be enough voters standing by Trump in the crucial swing states to keep those states from sliding into the Republican column. Trump would likely go hard at the Republican nominee, too. You can tell Trump, who expects a party coronation, is already miffed he has to actually campaign for the nomination. Deny him the nomination and he’ll turn the convention into a circus and the fall campaign into a brutal takedown of the Republican nominee. (Wait until he goes after Republicans for wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare.) If it becomes clear in the fall of 2024 Trump is siphoning off enough votes to deny the GOP nominee a shot at winning, a good chunk of Republican voters may actually say to hell with the party of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and cast a protest vote in Trump’s favor come November.
For that reason, I think most Republican voters, more concerned about not controlling the White House than with the future of American democracy, will come around to supporting Trump in the primaries. It’s why Senator Lindsey “Goose” Graham has already endorsed him. A divided Republican Party can’t win in 2024, so Republicans need to keep him in their tent, which means acquiescing to his demand to be made the nominee. The GOP will have a hard time winning with Trump at the top of their ticket, but if there is any disenchantment with Biden or any unease with whoever else the Democrats might pick, Trump has a shot. All it would take is a rerun of 2020 and the slightest shift of voters in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. That said, it’s also possible 2024 is the year a critical mass of middle-of-the-road Republicans, eyeing four more years of a mostly harmless lame-duck Biden, finally defy Trump and let his campaign crash-and-burn at the polls.
There are a few ways Republicans could potentially head this off. The first would be to impeach him in January 2021 diminish Trump early in the process, by which I mean before the first debates start rolling around this summer. If he never gets the chance to really contest the election, then he may just have to sulk away. The other is more nefarious: Promise to pardon Trump with the hope of winning his endorsement once he loses. That would be a pretty tricky move to pull off. It would need to be done before voting started in the primaries to pull voters away from Trump, but Trump would also have to signal to voters he would stand down as a third party candidate if the pardoner was the nominee. It could be that’s what Trump is angling for already—a pardon, not the presidency—but I doubt he’d go to all the trouble of actually running for president if he could just play kingmaker in exchange for a get-out-of-jail-free card. He has scores to settle.
Who are those potential pardoners, though? Far and away, the frontrunner is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whose appeal is that he’s a bully like Trump, only nicer. DeSantis would have to prove himself on the national stage—reports indicate he’s not a very personable guy and struggles at retail politics—but polls suggest right now, at worst, he’s running even with Trump. If DeSantis enters the race (still a big if in my opinion; why not just wait until 2028 when he wouldn’t have to deal with either Trump or Biden?) he would not only need to withstand Trump’s blistering attacks but deploy a strategy for hitting back at Trump in a way that doesn’t alienate Trump’s supporters or diminish his own stature. DeSantis would also likely be targeted by other contenders who would want to knock him down so they could take their shot at the king. That sort of infighting would probably only end up benefitting Trump, though, with polls already suggesting Trump would prevail in any race with more than three candidates.
Don’t expect Republicans to clear the field for DeSantis, though; they’ll want to be in the contest if he stumbles. It’s just that between Trump and DeSantis, there isn’t a lot of oxygen left in the room to run on, leaving other potential candidates diminished by comparison. Former Vice President Mike Pence looks like he intends to run even though it seems like no one wants him to or gives him a chance at winning. Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have taken steps to enter the race, but they don’t excite anyone or stir up a natural constituency. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu are all Trump critics and therefore out of step with their party. Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were humiliated by Trump in 2016 and no longer plausible as candidates.
On the other hand, Governor Greg Abbott seems to be following a similar playbook as DeSantis in Texas, if only to slightly less acclaim. Governors Brian Kemp of Georgia and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia could both cite recent victories in purple states to justify their candidacies. Two politicians from South Carolina—Senator Tim Scott and former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley—seem like individuals who might be able to brush off Trump’s attacks. For any of these candidates to win, though, they would need to clear the field and somehow facilitate Trump’s own self-destruction without attacking him directly or leaning on the support of the party machine. It would take a good-natured rope-a-dope strategy, but that strategy would also run a high risk of a knock out.
Let’s move on now to the Democrats, who I expect will re-nominate Joe Biden. No one will challenge Biden if he announces his intention to seek another four years in the White House. He could also have a pretty formidable record to run on by the time he faces voters in the fall of 2024. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which Biden hits the campaign trail to tout low inflation, low unemployment, steady economic growth, a burgeoning green tech energy sector, infrastructure projects scattered throughout the country, a long forgotten pandemic, and a defeated Russia. Of course, none of that is guaranteed, and there are other issues (China, immigration, crime, the aftershocks of a potential debt ceiling default) that could come to the fore, but I think it’s more likely than not Biden will be playing a pretty strong hand against a Republican Party that will look increasingly like a clown car to most voters come Election Day.
Biden’s main vulnerability is his age. He’ll turn 82 in November 2024 and leave office in 2029 as an 86-year-old. (He could actually build up a lot of goodwill by stepping aside and passing the torch to a new generation of Democrats.) While it’s clear he’s still mentally sharp—he has a firm grasp of policy and, I’d argue, better message discipline than he had as vice president—he’s still prone to commit verbal gaffes and stumble as he speaks. His movements are stiff and the glint of youthfulness is missing in his eyes. While that doesn’t speak to his mental acuity, Biden’s physical appearance reminds people he is at an age when the strain of the job could become too much for him. There are steps Biden can take to reassure people about his advanced age, but so long as something doesn’t happen that pushes it to the fore, when all is said and done, I don’t think it will turn into a decisive campaign issue. That’s doubly true if his opponent is a 78-year-old Trump.
Yet I understand how voters would be concerned about Biden’s age, and it’s easy to see how a Republican opponent not named Donald Trump could offer a potent contrast. Furthermore, some Democratic voters may want to get a jump start on their own party’s youth movement by nudging Biden aside in favor of someone more in tune with the current age. If Trump did win the GOP nomination, a younger Democrat could turn him and the Republican Party into artifacts.
Biden made sense in 2020 as a stabilizing force who didn’t need vetting; does he make sense looking forward from 2024? He may still be Democrats’ best response to Trumpism, as it’s hard to turn him into a left-wing boogeyman. But he also may not be the sort of candidate who, on his own, inspires Democrats and independents to turn out on Election Day, which would be problematic if he’s facing off against a highly motivated Republican electorate. In fact, according to a recent AP/NORC Center poll, only 37% of Democrats want Biden to run for re-election, down from 52% in the weeks before last year’s midterms. Democrats don’t seem disappointed with his record but more concerned with his age and ability to excite voters. The party faithful will be there for him; they’re mainly worried everyone else they need to get to the polls.
So who could Democrats turn to as an alternative to Biden? The obvious next-in-line is Vice President Kamala Harris, but she has so far failed to inspire confidence. Part of it’s the thankless position she holds, but when she has been in the spotlight, her performance has been underwhelming. Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have apparently been disappointed. Given Biden’s age, there’s also some concern she would be a liability on the ticket as is, with voters feeling she would be unprepared to take over as president should something happen to Biden. The last four Democratic vice presidents have all been nominated by their party for president (Humphrey, Mondale, Gore, and Biden, although Biden left office before getting the nom) so Harris would seem to have the inside track. There would also be a strong sentiment to put her at the top of the ticket since she would become the nation’s first female president if she won. I doubt she would coast to the nomination, though, and maybe for good reason, as only one of those four Democratic VPs listed earlier actually won the White House.
After Harris, the other figure from the Biden administration who stands out is Secretary of Transportation and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. At forty-three, Buttigieg would be a very young candidate, but he has impressed many with his intelligence and political acumen. He is particularly good at disarming Republican talking points and shifting arguments to favorable Democratic terrain. He is apparently a favorite of President Biden’s. Although he is a veteran and a former mayor of a small midwestern city, there is concern he is too technocratic and not populist enough for the moment. Yet he seems like someone the party is grooming to serve as president or in high political office in some capacity.
Beyond Harris and Buttigieg, it makes sense to consider senators and governors, as those positions have served as stepping stones to the presidency. If Biden chose not to run, it wouldn’t be surprising to see senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York take another run at the nomination (although Klobuchar and Gillibrand’s moments seem to have passed.) Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and Alex Padilla of California might also throw their hats into the ring. As far as governors go, Gavin Newsom of California, Jared Polis of Colorado, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan could jump into the race.
The most intriguing name on this list to me is Whitmer, a female governor with strong pro-choice credentials but without ties to Washington who hails from a must-win Midwestern industrial state. Like Harris, Whitmer would be the country’s first female president. Some may object to passing over a Black woman to select a white woman as the party’s nominee, but Whitmer did select Garlin Gilchrist, a Black technocrat from the Detroit area, as her running mate in 2018, which could allay those concerns. Anyone up for a Whitmer-Booker Democratic ticket in the near future?
Regardless, barring a shake-up in the Republican Party that somehow marginalizes the intra-party electoral threat posed by Trump, it looks like we’re headed toward another Biden-Trump showdown in 2024. What might that race look like? If the economy has recovered and remains generally prosperous and if the pandemic is in the rearview mirror, Trump’s brand of chaos politics—accentuated by the antics of the House Republican caucus—would have a hard time gaining traction. Republican prospects would dim further if Russia had to withdraw from Ukraine in defeat. Trump might still remain competitive in the Electoral College, but Biden would be a solid favorite.
But no matter who runs, the election promises an interesting contrast in populist politics. The Democratic nominee—whether Biden or someone else—will run on Biden’s populist economic playbook. That strategy was on full display during the State of the Union address this week, which Biden called a “blue-collar blueprint”: Tout job growth, tout infrastructure, tout infrastructure jobs, tout a new green energy sector, tout new green energy sector jobs, defend entitlement programs, go after junk fees, emphasize the dignity of work and the pride one takes in a career that provides for one’s family. The Republican nominee—whether Trump or someone else—will likely emphasize a populist cultural message, one that emphasizes education, immigration, crime, and attacks on a “woke” agenda. The Democratic strategy is designed to win over Bernie Sanders’ economic progressives and white blue-collar voters who might otherwise sit out the election or defect to Republicans. The Republican strategy is designed to activate their base and appeal to disaffected white working-class voters who view economic policy through a cultural lens.
That’s not to say Republicans won’t have an economic message or that Democrats won’t raise the issue of abortion, just that at the end of the day, it’s going to come down to the economy vs. the culture. Who wins that contest? Hot button cultural issues rivet the nation’s attention. Few Americans are aware of Biden’s economic accomplishments. But in the heat of an election, Americans make economic issues a priority. If the economy’s good and Biden as the incumbent is pushing an economic message while Trump is replaying his increasingly stale brand of grievance politics for the third election in a row, Biden should have the edge.
Signals and Noise
This will probably go down as one of the defining moments of Biden’s presidency.
For the record, here’s the Republican plan Biden was referring to. And here’s Ron DeSantis backing a plan privatizing Social Security back in 2012. Not a good look for Sen. Mike Lee of Utah either.
State of the Union addresses usually turn into nothingburgers (I’ve believed for some time now that presidents should just submit a text to Congress and forego the speech) but Biden’s speech last week was actually sneaky good, with Republicans lending him a hand. Some reviews:
“What made it work was not just that Biden was in a buoyant spirit, with an energy that’s often lacking, but that it was a clearly political speech with a clear political goal: to define Biden as the guy who is on your side, going after the big boys who were flourishing at your expense.”—Jeff Greenfield, Politico
“It was a no-quarter recommitment to a campaign theme aimed squarely at blue-collar voters in 2024 swing states, centered on expanding government in pursuit of what Mr. Biden calls ‘middle-out’ economic policy. Aides say the choice to defy Republicans’ calls for Mr. Biden to change course on economic policy was deliberate, reflecting both the president’s deeply held convictions on policy and his belief that he has found a winning political message.”—Jim Tankersley, New York Times
“It was the most effective of his presidency and for interesting reasons. Its first purpose was to demonstrate to his party that he’s in charge and formidable. He did that. The second, in my read, was to present himself in a new way to voters, especially those in the middle, and especially old Democratic constituencies. I think he did himself some good there.”—Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
“Partisanship, populism, and patriotism were his themes. The speech was strewn with traps carefully constructed to ensnare opponents. He opened with a tribute to bipartisanship, but the mechanics of his address were based on shrewd and unapologetic hyper-partisanship. He anticipated negative reactions in the chamber—and used them to reinforce his message.”—David Frum, The Atlantic
“This time, it was ordinary Republicans putting the spotlight on themselves — through extraordinary rudeness. With boos, taunts, groans, and sarcastic chortles, the opposition party effectively turned themselves into prime-time props for President Joseph Biden.”—John Harris, Politico
“I’ve never seen anything like it in a State of the Union speech – Republicans ran at him like a pack of lemmings and, with a wink and a grin, he politely directed them to the cliff….In the Republican rebuttal to Biden’s address, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: ‘The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal or crazy.’ She’s not wrong. But I don’t think she understands which side the American people see as crazy. (Hint: It’s the side that let itself get outfoxed on live TV by a president they keep calling old and incompetent.)”—Rex Huppke, USA Today
Joe Biden, the day after the SOTU: “Look – a lot of Republicans, their dream is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Well, let me just say this: It’s your dream, but I’m gonna have my veto pen to make it a nightmare.”
YEEEEEEAAAAAAH!
Here’s a role reversal for you: Biden is expected to propose the largest defense budget in American history. Republicans meanwhile are debating cutting the Pentagon’s budget.
BREAKING: Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post reports, “Former president Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign commissioned an outside research firm in a bid to prove electoral fraud claims but never released the findings because the firm disputed many of his theories and could not offer any proof that he was the rightful winner of the election, according to four people familiar with the matter.” The study was conducted in the final weeks of 2020. Trump continues to maintain the election was stolen. It will be interesting to see if there are legal consequences for this, as it indicates Trump knew otherwise when he told his followers the election was stolen and encouraged them protest the results.
And in case you missed this Friday night, from CNN: “Former President Donald Trump’s legal team turned over more materials with classified markings and a laptop belonging to an aide to federal prosecutors in recent months, multiple sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. The Trump attorneys also handed over an empty folder marked ‘Classified Evening Briefing,’ sources said. The previously undisclosed handovers – from December and January – suggest the protracted effort by the Justice Department to repossess records from Trump’s presidency may not be done.” A subpoena was issued for the empty folder.
Moore v. Harper, the case the Supreme Court recently heard concerning the dangerous Independent State Legislature Theory, may have been rendered moot by the North Carolina State Supreme Court.
Article of the Week: “AR-15 Lapel Pin is a Perfect Symbol for a GOP That’s Become a Death Cult” by Will Bunch for the Philadelphia Inquirer
Abortion activists are warning that a lawsuit challenging the scientific basis of the FDA’s approval of abortion pills might lead to a nationwide ban of the drug.
After the fall of Roe, some conservative activists are suddenly backing social welfare programs like expanded Medicaid, child care subsidies, and cash payments to families.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has told state agencies to no longer consider diversity in their hiring practices.
In another example of how federalism is not really about local rule, the Republican-led Tennessee legislature has introduced numerous bills that would meddle in the Democratic-led city’s governance and financing. The bills range from ones that would cut the size of the city council in half to renaming part of John Lewis Way as Trump Boulevard.
Duval County, Florida, has banned the book The Best Man by Richard Peck from school libraries on the grounds that it is pornographic even though Common Sense Media found nothing objectionable or even remotely sexual in the book. It appears, however, that the fact the book contains two gay adult characters led to the book’s removal.
Also in Florida: Doctors are concerned about a proposed education form that would require students to disclose information about their menstrual history in order to play high school sports.
Still more Florida news: The Florida legislature has approved a bill that will expand the migrant relocation program started by Gov. DeSantis. Now, Florida will pay to transport migrants in other states to blue states. Strangely, Florida has not passed a bill that would pay for other states’ school systems and roads.
And more from Florida: Florida State English Professor Diane Roberts writes in The Atlantic about what it’s like to teach at a Florida university during the DeSantis era.
Florida, again, from Beth Reinhard of the Washington Post: “As Gov. Ron DeSantis prepared for an election night party in downtown Tampa last year, city officials received a surprising — and politically sensitive — request. The Republican governor’s campaign wanted weapons banned from his victory celebration at the city-run Tampa Convention Center, a city official said in emails obtained by The Washington Post. And the campaign suggested that the city take responsibility for the firearms ban, the official said — not the governor, who has been a vocal supporter of gun rights.”
And, you guessed it, back to Florida. This time, it looks like the state may have its own version of George Santos. By Jacqueline Alemany and Alice Crites of the Washington Post: “Twelve years before she was elected as the first Mexican American woman to represent Florida in Congress, Anna Paulina Luna was serving at Whiteman Air Force Base in Warrensburg, Mo., where friends said she described herself as alternately Middle Eastern, Jewish or Eastern European. Known then by her given last name of Mayerhofer, Luna sported designer clothing and expressed support for then-President Barack Obama. By the time she ran for Congress as a Republican, she had changed her last name to Luna in what she said was an homage to her mother’s family. A staunch advocate for gun rights, she cited on the campaign trail a harrowing childhood that left her ‘battle hardened.’ She said she and her mother had little extended family as she grew up in ‘low-income’ neighborhoods in Southern California with a father in and out of incarceration. She said she experienced a traumatizing ‘home invasion’ when she was serving in the Air Force in Missouri. Luna’s sharp turn to the right, her account of an isolated and impoverished childhood, and her embrace of her Hispanic heritage have come as a surprise to some friends and family who knew her before her ascent to the U.S. House this year. A cousin who grew up with Luna said she was regularly included in family gatherings. Her roommate in Missouri had no recollection of the ‘home invasion’ Luna detailed, describing instead a break-in at their shared apartment when they were not home, an incident confirmed by police records.”
Biden’s new climate change law has already led to the creation of 100,000 new green jobs in the United States. MORE: “Fighting Climate Change Was Costly. Now It’s Profitable” by Emma Marris of The Atlantic
American gasoline consumption has fallen 6% compared to pre-pandemic levels, and that number is expected to continue to fall over the next two years.
Jonathan Partlow of the Washington Post has a good look at the crisis facing the Colorado River.
Economists thought the US was headed for a recession in 2023, but with inflation easing and a still-robust jobs market, they’re not sure what to expect anymore.
By Lydia DePillis of the New York Times: “Immigration Rebound Eases Shortage of Workers, Up to a Point”
By Amanda Mull of The Atlantic: “The Death of the Smart Shopper” (“Ostensibly, the rise of online shopping promised a greater-than-ever opportunity for buyers to be discerning and well educated about their options. The appeal of Amazon and other megaretailers is primarily that of affordable abundance—somewhere in there is the right thing at the right price, and you can consider endless options until you’re satisfied. But what’s abundant lately is undifferentiated junk. In these conditions, understanding what it is you’re buying, where it came from, and what you can expect of it is a fool’s errand. E-commerce giants have pushed to the point of absurdity a problem that’s central to the consumer system: It’s basically impossible to be an informed consumer, and it always has been.”)
Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng report in Rolling Stone that “the Trump administration and its allied Republicans in Congress routinely asked Twitter to take down posts they objected to — the exact behavior that they’re claiming makes President Biden, the Democrats, and Twitter complicit in an anti-free speech conspiracy to muzzle conservatives online.”
There is no political downside in American politics to being anti-China.
Despite international sanctions, China is providing Russia with technology Putin needs to wage his war in Ukraine.
By Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: “Year Two of the Ukraine War is Going to Get Scary”
A major issue in Ukraine: Will hundreds of thousands of Russian conscripts overwhelm Ukrainian forces, or do they still lack the training to make a difference? So far, Russia has lost thousands of troops this winter while making minor gains. Also: Should Ukraine counterattack if the expected Russian offensive flops? And can Russia continue draft civilians without facing a greater backlash?
The UK is thinking about sending fighter jets to Ukraine.
France plans on covering the nation’s parking lots with solar panels. (The picture below is of the parking lot of Disneyland Paris.)
Garbage Time: Is LeBron James the G.O.A.T.?
(Garbage Time theme song here)
First, a Super Bowl prediction: I don’t know, is Patrick Mahomes healthy? If so, Kansas City.
Moving on…
The Los Angeles Lakers’ LeBron James scored his 38,388th point this past Tuesday, which moved him past Kareem Abdul-Jabbar into first place on the list of career scoring leaders in the NBA. Many had assumed the scoring record was unassailable, but no one foresaw the arrival of an athlete like James: A forward with superhuman durability who entered the league as an 18-year-old phenom and, in his twentieth season, has regressed only slightly from his peak roughly a decade ago. While it’s clear James is near the end of his career, what is unclear is how long this epilogue will last. By the time he does retire, and barring injury, the record will likely stand at over 40,000 points.
In basketball, a player’s greatness (controversially) is often a factor of the number of championships they’ve won. An all-time great player must be able to lead a team to a title, if not multiple titles. Still, the scoring record is professional basketball’s gaudiest number, the only statistic a player could stake their claim to all-time greatness upon without having won a ring. James has the titles, and unless a marksman enters the league at the age of eighteen and averages 9 three-pointers a night over an injury-free eighteen-year career (not unimaginable, really) James will hold this record for a long time. Does this latest accomplishment finally, definitively make James the G.O.A.T.?
Unlike football (which has both offensive and defensive specialists) and baseball (which features both hitters and pitchers), it is somewhat easier to compare basketball players with one another in terms of skill and talent. The challenge is how to assess traditional centers—Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O’Neal—against guards and forwards who are expected to excel at jump shooting, driving to the basket, ball-handling, and passing. As dominant as centers once were in the Association (they won 23 of the first 28 MVP awards handed out by the league, but only 5 of the next 39, including the two most recent) it’s assumed today they’re not as well-rounded as players who make their living outside the paint. That’s not going to keep centers off the all-time great list. It’s just going to keep them out of the top spot.
With Chamberlain (perhaps the most dominant player to ever take the court) and Abdul-Jabbar (who possessed a near-indefensible shot that was maybe the greatest offensive weapon in the history of the sport) out of the running, that really leaves only two to three other players in contention for G.O.A.T. The consensus #3 is Magic Johnson, a 6’9” point guard who averaged an all-time high 11.2 assists per game and dished out 10,141 assists over 12+ years in the league (all-time leader John Stockton accumulated 15,806 over nineteen years) who also turned himself into a prime scoring threat during the latter half of his career. But Johnson is still considered a notch below the other two players on that list, LeBron James and Michael Jordan.
So the question really is this: Is LeBron James better than Michael Jordan, whom nearly everyone agrees was the G.O.A.T. prior to James’ ascension?
Jordan isn’t merely the archetypal basketball player, but also the epitome of athletic excellence. It’s fair to wonder, however, if he is a sentimental pick, the all-time G.O.A.T. because he was so obviously and unquestionably the G.O.A.T. when he retired for a second time in 1998. Is it possible James has finally surpassed Jordan? Let’s draw the comparison.
OFFENSE
Jordan averaged more points per game (30.12) than any other player in NBA history. More impressively, he holds the record for most points per game in the playoffs (33.4), a 3 point improvement on his regular season scoring average. Unsurprisingly, Jordan led the league in scoring 10 times, which is 3 more than Chamberlain in second place. He is currently fifth all-time in scoring with 32,292 points (behind James, Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone, and Kobe Bryant); it’s conceivable he would have passed Abdul-Jabbar if he had not retired twice in his prime and remained healthy.
James, of course, has scored more points than any other player in NBA history. He has scored an average of 27.2 points per game, which is currently fifth all-time behind Jordan, Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, and (barely) Kevin Durant. He has also averaged 28.7 points during the playoffs, which is good for sixth all-time. But James’ offensive impact shouldn’t be measured strictly by the points he scored, as he is also fourth all-time in total assists (10,351). He’ll have a hard time moving up on that list, as third place is an active player (Chris Paul) and those in first (John Stockton; 15,806) and second (Jason Kidd; 12,091) are multiple seasons away. But the final ranking is really immaterial, as James is the greatest offensive creator + finisher of all-time. (And note this as well: James currently ranks 32nd all-time in rebounds, which is one spot ahead of David Robinson. Nineteen of the players ahead of him on that list are either centers or center/power forwards. Accumulating 10,576 rebounds isn’t simply a matter of longevity, either; given James’ player profile—a power forward who often plays as a guard or a shooting forward—he’s had to make rebounding a focus of his game.)
DEFENSE
This is harder to quantify, but Jordan was also an elite defender. He is one of only 4 players (the others being Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and Gary Payton) to have been named to 9 first-team all-defensive teams. He ranks as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) two-way players of all-time.
James has been named to 5 first-team all-defensive teams, peaking between 2009 and 2013. He was not a strong defender early in his career, and he regressed as a defender after returning to Cleveland in 2014. Yet there is a notable difference in defensive intensity between regular-season LeBron and playoff LeBron.
ALL-NBA TEAMS
Jordan was a second-team All-NBA player in 1984-85, the year he also won the Rookie of the Year Award. He was injured the following season, but every full season he played thereafter (with the exception of his time with the Washington Wizards) he was a first-team All-NBA player. Jordan has five MVP awards, which is tied with Russell and one less than Abdul-Jabbar.
No player has been named to more All-NBA teams (18) and more first-team All-NBA teams (13) than James. Since his second season in the NBA, he has never not made the All-NBA team, and he won Rookie of the Year the only year he didn’t. His four MVPs are tied with Chamberlain.
CHAMPIONSHIPS
Not only did Jordan win six NBA championships with the Bulls, but he also never lost a Finals series and was the Finals MVP for all six of his championships. Also, never once did his Bulls have to play a Game 7 in the NBA Finals. One has to wonder if he could have added more championships to his resume had he not retired in 1993 and 1998.
James has appeared in 10 NBA Finals, including eight consecutive Finals between 2011 and 2018. He has won 4 titles (two with Miami, one with Cleveland, and one with the Lakers, and was named MVP in each of them) but has also lost 6 championship series. Two of those losses came against a Golden State Warriors team featuring Kevin Durant that is often considered the greatest team of all-time. Another came against a still-extremely formidable Durant-less Warriors in a series that saw James’ two-best teammates felled by injury. But he also lost two very winnable series with the Heat to the Mavericks and the Spurs. Still, only 26 more players have more rings than he does.
THE THREE-POINT CAVEAT
Some point out James is a more prolific three-point shooter. Over his career, James has shot 34.4% from three, making 2,237 of 6,494 attempts. That doesn’t make him a Steph Curry-level threat, but he’s not someone who can be allowed to roam around unattended beyond the arc.
Jordan, on the other hand, made 581 of 1,778 three-point attempts, leaving him at a slightly suboptimal 32.7%. But players in the 1980s and 1990s were not expected to crank up threes the way they are today. When Jordan did approach the number of three-point attempts launched by individual players in today’s game in 89-90, 92-93, 95-96, and 96-97, he shot 37.6%, 35.2%, 42.7%, and 37.4%, respectively, with each of those seasons representing his career bests. If Jordan played in today’s NBA, he would have turned himself into a three-point threat, and he would have slayed. Given the way the floor is spaced in today’s game as well and how much less physically punishing it is, Jordan could very well have been a more productive player in 2023 than in the 1990s.
CONCLUSION
Individual statistics don’t quite capture LeBron James’ greatness. James is the epitome of position-less basketball. On offense, he can play the point, shooting guard, both forward positions and hold his own at center. He is almost always the best forward on the floor, and when he plays a position other than forward he creates a match-up nightmare for the opposing team. James may not be an all-time elite defender, but he can guard every position, and when he bears down on one-on-one defense, he can be a beast. He can score, pass, and rebound the ball. He is probably the most versatile, well-rounded player to every play the game. If someone were to argue that makes LeBron James the greatest player of all-time, I would not object.
With all due respect to the late, great Bill Russell, however, Michael Jordan is the game’s greatest champion. Jordan is hardwired to win games, and that’s all he did in the 1990s. His stats and his player profile—again, maybe the greatest two-way player of all-time—are a product of that ambition. If he does not have the assists or rebound numbers that James has, it’s because chasing those numbers wouldn’t have served the greater purpose of winning.
Some have wondered who would win in a one-on-one match-up. That would likely come down to a series of inconclusive make-or-miss games. Jordan is a better ball-handler; James could gain an advantage by playing bully ball. But I don’t think either player, particularly James, would want to be measured against the other in a game of one-on-one. Basketball is a team sport, and both would want to be measured in the context of team competition.
And that’s where I think Jordan retains the edge. In the 1990s, Jordan won six championships alongside Scottie Pippen and…that’s about it. Granted, at times during that stretch, Pippen may have been the second-best player in the world (Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, and David Robinson would likely have something to say about that) and players like Horace Grant (93-94 All-Star), B.J. Armstrong (93-94 All-Star), Dennis Rodman (HOFer), and Toni Kukoč (95-96 Sixth Man of the Year, HOFer) were not slouches, but Jordan was not surrounded by the depth of talent characteristic of other NBA championship teams.
James, on the other hand, has often been surrounded by talent. He formed a big three in Miami with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh (and added Ray Allen to the roster during his last two seasons there) and in Cleveland with Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love, but only managed three championships in eight total seasons in both cities. In Los Angeles, despite being paired with Anthony Davis and an (albeit diminished) Russell Westbrook, he’s only won one ring while at times missing the playoffs all together. The rosters of the teams around him are deeper than those Jordan played on, but they’ve also led to more disappointment. Again, basketball is a team sport: James can’t do everything on the court, and there would have been limits to what Jordan would have been able to accomplish if he had been teamed with lesser players. Yet Jordan still managed to get his teams to the podium in spite of their limitations and despite facing many deep and talented teams (i.e., Ewing’s New York Knicks, Barkley’s Phoenix Suns, Miller’s Indiana Pacers, Stockton and Malone’s Utah Jazz.)
Why is this? A hypothesis. Jordan and James viewed their teammates—as Shaquille O’Neal calls them, “the others”—differently. Jordan believed his presence on the court would maximize the talents of his teammates. Jordan knew if he did what he was supposed to do, that would give his teammates their best opportunity to succeed, which would give the Bulls the best chance at winning. James approaches his teammates differently. He believes his teammates should do what is necessary to maximize his talents, which will give his teams the best shot at a victory. This is how Jordan turns players like John Paxson and Steve Kerr into heroes, while great players like Chris Bosh and Kevin Love seem to wither in the company of James.
That doesn’t mean Jordan was a better teammate than James, or that James is a bad teammate; in fact, I suspect it is probably easier at a personal level for players to relate to James than to Jordan. But it was probably easier for an NBA player to bring their talents to a Jordan-centric team than to a James-centric team. Jordan knows his talent sets his teammates up, while James expects his teammates to set his talent up. As versatile a player as James is, that has limited James’ rise to the top spot on the list of greatest players to have ever played the team sport of basketball. Michael Jordan remains the G.O.A.T..