61 pages • 2-hour read
Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 1, Chapters 1-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 1: “The Unmaking of the President”
Part 1, Chapter 1 Summary: “The Quiet Part Out Loud”
Chapter 1 opens with various Democratic leaders and aides preparing, with varying degrees of anxiety, to watch the June 27th, 2024, presidential debate between incumbent Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump.
Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, had warned her old friend Biden not to lower himself by debating with Trump. She argued that he should not “dignify Trump” (4) by giving him equal footing. As one of Trump’s longtime detractors and protestors, Pelosi didn’t think that Biden would gain anything from debating an insurrectionist and convicted felon on the national stage. However, Biden refuted her and appeared eager to be the one asserting authority and setting the terms of the debate, instead of letting Trump’s campaign accuse him of shirking the debate. However, other lawmakers expressed worry and doubt to Pelosi and others, stating before the debate that to them, “Biden did not look sharp” (4). Veteran political leaders, all of whom also prepared to watch the debate, reflected that while Biden had always held his own, his debate skills had never been extraordinary.
As they watched Biden enter the stage, their uncertainty grew. He looked pale and haggard, suffering from a recent cold, and his initial remarks caused concern among his supporters. He seemed to forget basic facts and used confusing phrasing, claiming, among other things, that “we finally beat Medicare” (7). This was an incoherent attempt to point out his victory over high prescription drug prices. However, Trump was able to seize on that phrase and turn it into a successful attack on Biden’s mental fitness.
Afterwards, Trump and his team were shocked at the ease with which Trump had dominated the debate. Trump had been arguing for months that Biden was unfit to lead the country, and now in this debate, he didn’t even have to spin lies about it: Biden didn’t look fit. His aides seized on the opportunity to advance Trump’s cause, immediately reaching out to media for interviews about the debate.
The narrative then turns to Biden’s lengthy and accomplished political career. His experience, levelheadedness, and reliability as a bipartisan dealmaker were his main draws as a political candidate, earning him the role of vice president to Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. However, Biden was then asked to tread unfamiliar ground as a counterweight to the rising authoritarian politics of Trump’s presidency. His closest aides, married couple Anita Dunn and Bob Bauer, as well as his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, and his sole surviving child, Hunter Biden, formed “a cocoon around Biden” (13) as he ran for a second term. Later, they would all be accused of actively hiding Biden’s decline from the nation. They helped Biden prep extensively for the debate, believing that Biden could give a mediocre performance and still win once Trump’s bluster invariably deteriorated into nonsense. However, their decisions have the unintended effect of allowing Trump’s lies to pass nearly unnoticed as the shocked nation struggles to process Biden’s abysmal debate performance.
In the wake of the debate, Democratic leaders scramble to mitigate the damage to Biden’s campaign. His campaign managers and aides reveal that they had long had misgivings about Biden’s 2024 run, noting that Biden, when he traveled, had a makeup artist meet him early every morning to “whitewash his age” (17) and showed signs of cognitive decline to family, friends, and supporters. They all kept silent, however, worrying that pointing out Biden’s decline would benefit Trump by derailing Biden’s campaign. However, the debate made it clear to the nation what had been obvious to Biden’s inner circle: he was not robust enough for a second term as President.
Part 1, Chapter 2 Summary: “Contingency Plans”
The narrative turns to Trump’s campaign, where “Trump allies” and advisers recall watching the debate with a combination of disbelief, delight, and rising adrenaline as they sprang into action to take advantage of Biden’s disastrous performance. They noted that not only Biden but his whole campaign seemed slow to address the problem. Barack Obama, the 44th President, who enlisted Biden as his running mate in 2008 and 2012, “was shocked if not surprised” (29) at Biden’s performance. He endorsed Biden in 2021 because Biden had promised to be a “bridge candidate,” or a candidate who would serve only one term in order to usher in new leadership. Obama recognized that Biden’s determination to run again, flouting his earlier promise, showed his slipping grasp on the political reality of contemporary America.
Biden allies, meanwhile, were stunned by the disaster. Far from trying to spin the debate as less of a crisis than it was, they immediately began to search for replacements for Biden. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and current Vice President Kamala Harris were the main contenders for the campaign. However, Whitmer seemed reluctant to accept the possibility of a nomination, and Harris was widely considered a flawed candidate for a number of reasons, including her less-than-ideal media relations history and her staunch defense of Biden’s unpopular economic plans. Officials “gamed out Biden-withdrawal scenarios” (36) before the sun rose the next morning. Some of the scenarios involved Biden’s untimely death before election day, which some Democratic leaders reflected on as a sign of serious issues with the party. They had never had a candidate who seemed not only feeble, but likely to imminently die, and they had to build a brand new strategy to accommodate this reality.
Part 1, Chapter 3 Summary: “Keep Fighting”
After the debate, Biden continued to fundraise, attending a dinner in New Jersey only two days after the debate. Guests noted that, far from projecting health and vitality, Biden needed fluorescent tape on the carpet of the venue to show him where to walk, and his speech before the dinner was rambling and unfocused.
Meanwhile, Trump was irritated that the debate coverage focused more on Biden’s decline than Trump’s “dominant debate performance” (41). His aide, Steven Cheung, tried to convince him that sitting back and letting Biden implode was actually the best move for his campaign, but Trump couldn’t stand to have attention focused on someone else, even if it benefited him.
Meanwhile, Biden’s campaign manager Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, referred to as JOD, had the unenviable task of explaining to campaign donors what had happened at the debate and how they planned to come back from it. JOD refused to admit that the campaign had stumbled, instead implying that those who questioned Biden’s fitness to run were “like traitors” (44). This intransigence led more and more Democrats and allies to push for Biden’s retreat from the campaign, including congressmen and senators. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, in particular, reflected that the Democratic Party needed a united front but threatened to tear itself apart as Biden loyalists and Biden critics battled for supremacy. Biden’s family, including Jill and Hunter, formed a protective shield against criticism, arguing vehemently against claims from both the right and the left that Biden was unfit to run. Observers reflected that Jill and Hunter seemed to identify themselves with the presidency as well as Biden.
Vice President Kamala Harris, one of the top contenders to replace Biden if it came to that, found herself needing to defend Biden while also presenting herself as a prime candidate for his replacement. Though she wasn’t popular with the political elite, she did a good job reassuring antsy donors about Biden’s fitness for the job. Gretchen Whitmer, the other top candidate, reassured both Harris and the larger Democratic Party that she had “no designs on the presidency in 2024” (60) even if Biden dropped out. However, Whitmer also privately noted that the discussions among top Democrats on who to support had uncomfortable racial undertones. Whitmer, a white woman, and Harris, a Black woman, were being compared in terms of their viability to bring out the vote as symbols of racial identity, not based on their principles or policies.
Part 1, Chapter 4 Summary: “An Episode or a Condition”
Obama reached out to his former running mate. He “gently poked at Biden” (61), asking him to define his intentions for the campaign. Biden held some longstanding resentment for his former boss, stemming from Obama’s refusal to endorse him in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Biden’s “bruised ego made him more defiant” (62), not less. Obama’s critique only fueled his decision to focus the blame on his advisers, claiming that he had been overprepared for the debate, and the overabundance of facts and figures led to his paralysis on the stage. Biden was used to being underestimated and criticized by the Democratic Party, and so far, he had always emerged victorious. His aides, while dealing with the shock and confusion of the nation, still believed that Trump could only be defeated by the “clarity and moral authority of Biden” (66).
Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and current congresswoman, privately wished that Biden would drop out but knew that making her opinion public would only isolate and embarrass Biden. However, when appearing on an NBC talk show, she stated that the American public deserved to have confidence in their President’s mental acuity and physical health and asked “is this an episode or a condition?” (67) A Democratic congressman, meanwhile, “broke the seal” (67) by publicly calling for Biden to withdraw. Biden’s aides initiated pushback on the demand, while Trump’s campaign took advantage of the infighting, staying as quiet as possible to let the crisis among Democrats take center stage.
Biden and his team decided to stay in the race long enough to be officially nominated. If nominated, Biden could still choose to withdraw, and crucially, the Chairman of the Democratic Party would then have sole authority in naming a successor. The current Chairman, Jaime Harrison, was a staunch Biden ally, and therefore Biden would be able to name his own successor. In order to maintain power over farther left rivals like Bernie Sanders, Biden had stocked the Democratic Party leadership with loyalists. Because of this, even as he floundered, none of the delegates would betray him.
Biden and his team decided to slot him in for interviews and rallies to prove he was capable. His interview with George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton aide and staunch Democrat, included some verbal stumbles that filled Democrats with “fear, anger, and disbelief” (77). However, all the people in the party who wanted him to step down reflected that, according to the current structure of the Democratic Party, the only person who could make that call was Biden himself.
Part 1, Chapters 1-4 Analysis
The narrative presented in Chapters 1 through 4 underscores a crisis moment in the 2024 US presidential campaign, ignited by President Joe Biden’s faltering debate performance against former President Donald Trump. As Allen and Parnes explore the fallout from this episode, they uncover A Crisis of Leadership and Accountability in Modern Politics—one that affects both the Democratic and Republican parties, though it takes notably different forms in each.
The Democrats’ internal reckoning, following Biden’s visible decline during the June 27th debate, presents this crisis in sharp relief. Though Biden’s aides and political allies, including Vice President Harris, Anita Dunn, Bob Bauer, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, and First Lady Jill Biden, were aware of his cognitive and physical limitations, Allen and Parnes argue that they chose to “cocoon” him (13) rather than confront the implications of his declining capacities. This insular strategy, intended to shield Biden from scrutiny, ultimately resulted in a catastrophically public failure. The notion of leadership as responsibility to the electorate was supplanted by an instinct to protect the figurehead of the party at all costs. Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, while privately skeptical, still refrained from direct public confrontation until it became unavoidable, reflecting a systemic reluctance to demand accountability at the highest levels. Pelosi’s public question—“is this an episode or a condition?” (67)—signals the moment where duty to the public begins to outweigh party loyalty.
In contrast, Trump’s campaign, while riddled with its own ethical deficiencies, demonstrated a different model of political leadership: opportunistic, reactive, and in service to media spectacle. His advisors immediately capitalized on Biden’s poor performance, recognizing the strategic advantage. Trump’s own response—marked by irritation that the media emphasized Biden’s failure over his own “dominant debate performance” (41)—reveals a narcissistic conception of leadership, one centered not on service or substance but on visibility and dominance.
The Tension Between Public Service and Personal Ambition emerges as a defining conflict for Biden and those around him. Despite his earlier pledge to be a “bridge candidate” (29), Biden’s decision to run for a second term appears increasingly motivated by personal determination rather than public need. His rejection of Obama’s cautious inquiries, and his insistence on continuing in the race despite mounting calls for withdrawal, underscore a sense of ego-driven ambition that was not checked by his trusted friends. The suggestion that Biden and his family—particularly Jill and Hunter Biden—had come to identify their personal legacy with the presidency suggests a dangerous blurring of public duty and private investment. Critics reinforce this suggestion by accusing them of trying to maintain the illusion of vitality rather than face the public with honesty. By contrast, Republican ambition is more transparently aggressive but, paradoxically, less conflicted. Trump’s campaign, seasoned by three different bids for the presidency, does not mask its desire for power under the guise of service. Trump himself, as seen in his reaction to the debate, prioritizes personal vindication and media attention over national interest or substantive policy. His advisors, such as Steven Cheung, attempt to temper Trump’s narcissism by framing inaction as strategic benefit—an indication that within the Republican structure, managing Trump’s personal ambition is itself a campaign strategy.
From the beginning, the debate functions less as a forum for policy discussion and more as a media spectacle, illustrating The Influence of Media on Public Perception. Trump’s team seizes the moment, using the media to reinforce the image of Biden as unfit, while Biden’s team struggles to control the narrative. The Democrats’ initial decision to spin Biden’s performance as overpreparation or to silence critics as “traitors” (44) reveals the extent to which political messaging has overtaken truthfulness. In this environment, presidential hopefuls like Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer must manage their public personas delicately, wary of media optics and identity politics and how they can clash in disastrous ways. The media—an increasingly vast, varied, and all-encompassing galaxy of information sources—does not merely as a reflect political developments; it shapes and potentially distorts public understanding. The Democrats’ fear of what Biden’s withdrawal might symbolize—not just weakness, but instability and internal fracture—reflects the media’s capacity to amplify internal party conflicts. Meanwhile, Trump’s grievance over not receiving more credit for his performance illustrates the extent to which success in modern politics is measured not by policy outcomes but by media validation.
In comparing the two campaigns, what becomes evident is that both parties are deeply entangled in a media-centric mode of politics, but they respond differently to the crises this creates. The Democrats, constrained by institutional loyalty and a hierarchical campaign structure, experience paralysis, with aides, lawmakers, and donors at odds about how to respond. Biden’s grip on the nomination, ensured through party loyalists and procedural control, underscores how modern political leadership can become insulated from democratic accountability. The Republicans, by contrast, respond with tactical clarity despite the unpredictable actions of Trump, demonstrating (in the authors’ view) how a lack of ethical scruples can facilitate political agility.
Chapters 1 through 4 offer a bleak view of contemporary American politics, where leadership is compromised by personal ambition, accountability is muddled by institutional loyalty, and public perception is orchestrated as much by what sells in the media as by reality.
Unlock all 61 pages of this Study Guide
Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.
- Grasp challenging concepts with clear, comprehensive explanations
- Revisit key plot points and ideas without rereading the book
- Share impressive insights in classes and book clubs