Writes David Remnick, in "The Reckoning of Joe Biden/For the President to insist on remaining the Democratic candidate would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment" (The New Yorker).
Does trying to "energize" people — at this late stage — about Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore seem "more rational" to you? Gretchen Whitmer/Raphael Warnock/Josh Shapiro/Wes Moore did not go through the primary process, interacting with real people across the country and standing up to months of scrutiny, outlasting others. And what would this alternative process — this "admittedly complicated process" — consist of? It seems as though it would resemble the process of picking the VP candidate — similar to the way Kamala Harris was picked 4 years ago. Why would voters be "inspir[ed]" to have such a person foisted on them by the same people who presented Biden as excellent and are now asserting that he's hopelessly decrepit? I know they just want to win, but that's not the stuff of hopes and dreams.
Remnick worries about Biden's "self-delusion," but what about his?
By the way, is it "entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September"? Not only is it entirely possible for Biden to have a much stronger debate in September, it's entirely possible that if you calm yourself, clear your head of preconceptions, and cue up last Thursday's debate and watch it again, you will perceive it as a much stronger debate than it seemed on first watch.
And I will resist putting my time into a little exercise in cynicism, but this sentence is begging for a paraphrase: "To stay in the race would be pure vanity, uncharacteristic of someone whom most have come to view as decent and devoted to public service."