Chuck Todd thinks Biden’s team purposely set him up to struggle in the debate.

Chuck Todd on Biden’s Debate Strategies

Chuck Todd expressed that he believes former President Joe Biden is unlikely to change his conviction that his debate strategy against Donald Trump would be pivotal for his campaign last summer. In a recent episode of “Chuck Toddcast,” he spoke with Mark Leibovich from The Atlantic and highlighted that Biden’s team had reportedly scheduled their first presidential debate as early as June, reinforcing his belief that there were underlying reasons for Biden’s lackluster performance.

“I firmly believe the argument was deliberate,” Todd mentioned. He pointed out that Biden’s poor debate performance negatively impacted his reelection bid. Just weeks after the debate, Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Kamala Harris as his replacement.

The scrutiny over Biden’s cognitive abilities has increased significantly, particularly following a new book titled *Original Sin* by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, which alleges that Biden’s administration has been attempting to obscure the president’s cognitive decline.

Leibovich supported Todd’s assertions, suggesting that there were discussions within Biden’s inner circle that highlighted serious concerns about his capability to fulfill the role of president effectively.

Todd also criticized the lack of accountability among Democrats regarding Biden’s declining status. He remarked, “The idea that the White House had people in the Biden campaign meant someone wanted to shed light on the situation.” Yet, he acknowledged that Biden’s close advisors might deny such claims vehemently.

Todd observed, “If I were in their position, I would deny it too.” He compared the scenario to historical events, referencing how some events may be omitted for convenience when discussing past political maneuvers.

Returning to the notion of a deliberate attempt to alter the race dynamics, Todd reflected, “There wouldn’t have been any other reason to make such decisions. They were aware of the timeline for nominations and needed to consider their options for making necessary changes.” His conviction seems strong in this regard.