I certainly understand the vigorous, ongoing debate about what Biden ought to do post-debate. My position continues to be that he will stay in. How anyone convinces a person who occupies the presidency that they have to step aside because of one debate performance is beyond me as a practical matter. I also continue to believe that the downside risk of a change outweighs the downside risk of sticking with Biden. I can accept that views vary on this, but I am also quite certain that barring a catastrophic event, Biden will be the candidate.
Still, to be clear, there are two distinct issues. The first is what would even result in him stepping down. The second is then who (and how) he would be replaced.
As a side note, the only way to have avoided being in this situation was if Biden had not been the nominee in 2020 or if he had lost the race. Human beings with the ego needed to run for and serve as POTUS don’t turn down their shot at a second term. As has been noted before, intra-party fights when the incumbent is eligible for re-election carry its own risk.
To be clear, I would prefer a younger candidate. Indeed, I have argued for age limits before. As I wrote at the time:
If it is known that a given system will, from time to time, have to address difficult circumstances it is better to work out the process in the absence of personal feelings or the emotions of the moment. It is the same basic reason why one should make plans for one’s own old age and potential infirmities, rather than either a) hoping you will be the one who doesn’t have such problems or b) assuming that it will work out at the moment (which is rarely done without some planning).
This sounds awfully familiar to me.
But I digress.
The main point of this post was to point to a few others who have thoughts on the subject.
First, I highly recommend Dan Drezner’s piece, The Choice is Biden or Harris.
His basic thesis:
The question, for those of us who do not want to see a second Trump term, is: “what now?” And this is where there some cold water is called for, because there are really only two viable choices:
- Stick with Joe Biden; or
- Have Biden resign the presidency sometime this summer, Kamala Harris sworn in as President, and have Harris be the Democratic Party nominee.
That’s it, those are your options. Everything else is nonsense.2 Let me explain.
I would recommend you all read his explanation, but I think he is 100% correct. Treating the sitting vice president like just one option, especially the first woman and person of color to occupy that position, is to court a disastrous fight within the party and provide ample fodder for Trump and the press.
I will note the following (which Drezner also notes) from a multi-pundit conversation at the NYT from Jemelle Bouie (that I think was also noted here at OTB in recent comments):
Bouie: In addition, there is a real risk that the process of choosing a new nominee could tear open the visible seams in the Democratic Party. I have noticed that only a handful of calls for Biden to leave are followed by “and Vice President Harris should take his place.” More often, there is a call for a contested convention. But why, exactly, should Harris step aside? Why should Harris not be considered the presumptive nominee on account of her service as vice president and her presence on the 2020 ticket? And should Harris be muscled out, how does this affect a new nominee’s relationship with key parts of the Democratic base, specifically those Black voters for whom Harris’s presence on the ticket was an affirmation of Biden’s political commitment to their communities?
(More at the link).
Everyone calling for a new candidate is ignoring the very basic fact that opening up a competition for the nomination is an invitation to the party’s various factions to turn on one another. The whole point of a nominee is unification of party factions. That is an unpredictable and potentially dangerous option at any juncture in this process, especially right now when voters are starting to pay attention.
Let me add this post-debate poll from Data for Progress (h/t: Paul Campos at LGM).
I am making no definitive claims from this poll, but it suggests that there is no obvious savior.
Also, via Reuters: Biden hits fundraising trail in show of strength after dismal debate performance.
This is akin, but not identical, to what happens to Trump after legal troubles–the threat just translates into the team circling the wagons even in the midst of doubt and concern. All of this appears to me to be an ongoing confirmation of what I keep saying about both the way American parties behave, but also how American voters behave in the context of only two viable teams.
Let me conclude to reiterate what I said in the comments of my previous post: all this anxiety is not really about fears about an old President Biden. No, the anxiety is about a second Trump term. That is the real source of the panic. And hence, the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer‘s counter to the NYT‘s: To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race.
Indeed.
