Should He Stay or Should He Go?
A clash of possibilities.
So let’s start with my post by pointing out that in terms of whether he will go, I Don’t Think He is Going Anywhere. I think barring a tragedy or massive health crisis, he will be the nominee. But that was true before the debate. So, yes, we can all point to Clooney, or Pelosi, or bad calls with some members of Congress, but if you listen to Joe Biden on the campaign trail, it is quite obvious he is not exiting.
Let’s turn to what I think has been going on since the debate. I think that a lot of people concerned about Donald Trump winning the White House were looking at the polls prior to the debate and were hoping, consciously or unconsciously, that the debate would change the dynamic of the race. They hoped that Biden would shine and that Trump would damage himself in some way. When that didn’t happen, and especially when it didn’t happen while highlighting, in spades, one of Biden’s key weaknesses, the panic began. (And I think that the panic was reinforced by the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity).
Just to take one poll that was recently released as an example, I would suggest that the media freak-out (and the robust conversation here at OTB) does not comport with the data. I have noted this fact a few times, in fact.
James Joyner has noted that the overall numbers are down for Biden, but again, not in a way that correlates with the overall story of debate disaster requiring candidate replacement.
Again, to my point, the real story is that the debates didn’t change much, which means Trump continues to have a clear path to victory.
To perhaps be a bit pedantic, I would note that if Biden had gone into the debate up by 5 points and remained up by 5 points, no one would be panicking about the debate performance. If he had gained points after the debate, no one would be panicking. The panic is, therefore, that Trump went into the debate with a 50-50 shot (or better) at winning, and the debate didn’t change that. Everyone who fears a Trump return to power wants assurances that that will not happen. Biden cannot provide that, and so we get the panic.
I think that the debate just confirmed that Joe Biden is old and people already knew that. I also think that the main drag on Biden is this:
Too many people blame Joe Biden for the price of gas, groceries, and rent. Full stop. But I expect that people who have such an understanding of the economy would also blame Harris. Indeed, if there is evidence that a Harris ticket could change the dynamic over the economy, I would be all ears.
I would note, however, that while the basic contours of the race remain pretty stable, the whole situation has also provided the media with an easy to cover, dramatic story. Further, it is pure horserace and it feeds the both-sides monster because it shows how tough they can be on Democrats.
But let’s shift to should he go?
I will confess to my own personal roller-coaster on this issue. When I saw Biden stumbling through the first half, in particular, of the debate I thought that the bottom was going to fall out. I thought, in fact, it was over for Biden and I think that a lot of pundits, who have to have immediate opinions for a living, locked in on that feeling and haven’t let it go. And, further, a lot of people with priors on this subject (e.g, Ezra Klein, James Carville, and David Axelrod) were more than happy to engage in varying kinds of “toldja so” narratives.
I think that there are two components that need to be addressed in terms of the question of “should he stay or should he go?”
First, is he fit or unfit for the job right now? If he is unfit, not only should he step aside as the nominee, he likely should contemplate resignation. Allowing that it is impossible to really know the answer to this question, I will state that the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden can still govern, but that he is limited by the fact that he is old. (Again, this is not new information).
I cannot make an argument, based on actual evidence, that he should resign. Do I worry that the older he gets, the more limitations he will face? Yes. But that is a question for later, I would argue.
Second, and this is the core of the debate, would Kamala Harris (because I truly believe she is the only other option) have a substantially better chance of beating Donald Trump than Joe Biden does?
To this point, I have seen nothing that makes me think this is true, even as I acknowledge that a change could be energizing.
But here are some factors that I think are true, which sum to argue against a switch.
- As noted above, there is no evidence that the debates harmed Biden in a conclusive way.
- What polling we do have does not show Harris doing much differently than Biden. See, for example, FiveThirtyEight‘s analysis here: Would Kamala Harris be a stronger candidate than Biden? (spoiler: the answer the piece provides is “no”).
- What about legal challenges? To me, this is a huge issue that is not being adequately discussed. In simple terms, does anyone reading this want to gamble on courts acting quickly and justly on issues that could bar Harris from campaign resources or the ballot? At a bare minimum, there needs to be utter clarity on the ease and legality of a hand-over and I have yet to see any clarity at all.
- It is a commentary on America to have to note that I think that Doddering Old White Man probably has a better chance at winning than Angry Black Lady. (Note that I am not saying this is a fair representation of either of them, but I do think that that is how they are perceived by a lot of the country). Along these lines, I think that the perception that Harris has been a less than stellar VP is part and parcel of what I am describing because objectively I think she has been a pretty standard issue veep.
- New can be exciting, but there are a lot of unknowns in making a switch, and I think most people calling for a switch are hand-waving away the notion that such unknowns exist. Further, noting the Biden could further stumble and assuming Harris would be perfect is just wishcasting (i.e., a lot of the fixation on a new candidate seems to assume that the new candidate will be practically perfect in almost every way, but unless we are getting Mary Poppins, that seems unlikely).
- Unity is not guaranteed, or even likely. If there is a switch and the polling stays roughly where it is, then instead of a bunch of people calling for Joe to go, we will have a lot of people screaming “told you so!” There is a lot of magical thinking about how Biden stepping down leads to a clean and easy transition to the next candidate. But the reality is that a change opens up the party to expose all of its faultlines. Unity is not a guaranteed outcome. All of the current squabbling will be amplified if you remove the candidate who has been the consensus standard bearer since 2020.
- Incumbency matters. It comes with downsides, to be sure (see the economy polling above) but going from the sitting president to not the sitting president is not nothing.
- Changing now will be perceived by many as the Democrats admitting they made a massive mistake.
Really, a lot of this reminds me of arguments fans make about getting a new head coach or quarterback insofar as people assume, whether they realize it or not, that they will get to keep all the positive of the current situation and only get the good of the replacement. But when you replace a QB who gets sacked too much, the next one may be more mobile and throw more interceptions. There are always trade-offs and I am leery of assumptions that a change only begets positives. That is the very definition of wishful thinking.
The bottom line is that this is currently a coin toss and I have seen nothing, save hope and hand-waving, that convinces me that replacing Biden changes that dynamic. Couple that with the obvious fact that he isn’t going to quit, then this ongoing debate within the party is not helpful to the overall goal of defeating Trump in November.
In the absence of significant evidence that a change should be made, and with some serious unknowns on the table, I think that the wise move is to stay the course, all the while recognizing that any choice contains risk because there is a substantial number of Americans willing to return Donald Trump to the White House–and that is the real issue. If Nikki Haley were the GOP nominee, we would not be having this panicked conversation.
And, really that word, panic, is perhaps the core reason that I am anti-change. I think that the argument for change is born of panic and high anxiety, and those are not emotions that should sway such a monumental decision. If you have evidence for your position for change, please provide it. If all you have are fears and vibes, I would suggest a pause to think about the situation more dispassionately.
Both scenarios contain downside risk and upside potential. But really, the upside for swapping Biden for Harris is all hope and speculation. The downside is more concretely identifiable: gender, race, intraparty conflicts, and legal and procedural hurdles.
So, even while part of me would like to see a switch because I think Harris would clearly be a better campaigner and debater, I think that the risks of such a move are too great to engage in such a risky maneuver.
(And now, maybe, I can quit writing about this?)
Very cogent analysis. It’s a crapshoot. I favor changing the narrative with Harris, but I’m a writer with a writer’s instincts. And we’re in the land of instinct, not data. Roll the dice and spin the wheel.
One other note: the world’s greatest economic, military, diplomatic and cultural power is down to this. This is what we’ve come up with. It’s almost as if something is wrong with the system. If only I knew a Political Scientist to ‘splain it all.
I think civilization itself may be failing. The center no longer holding.
Whatever the outcome, the Democrats have to finalize and coalesce around the decision, so this easy story of Dems in Disarray can be quieted at least a little.
(Dems in Disarray will always be the easiest, most profitable, political journalism. Easiest because the plot lines are as well-told and familiar as nursery rhymes. Most profitable because both Democrats and Republicans will click on those kinds of articles, while Republicans avoid like the plague anything that makes them question their alternate reality.)
Quiet the Dems in Disarray punditry and perhaps we can shift to talking about the dangers of the GOP in Lock-step. The Republican Convention is next week and we should expect it to play out like a Leni Riefenstahl film. All eyes need to be on that spectacle.
Exactly.
Great post. I, like Dr. Taylor, believe that the probability of legal challenges is not getting nearly enough attention…if we get to that point, the chaos from Jan. 6 will look mild in comparison. We’ll have Harris approved to be the nominee in some states but not others, and the whole mess making its way to an untrustworthy Supreme Court.
Anyhoo.
I’ve also had The Second Coming (the Yeats poem) running through my head a bit lately. Empires fall, and all that.
Well done. Well stated. Clear. Concise. Reasonable. A good argument overall. Thank you!
Didn’t change anything on the ground* but didn’t expect it to. Can’t have everything.
*As always, I would be overjoyed for a groundswell of protesters shouting “shut up, cracker, you don’t know nothin” in agreement with Dr. Taylor’s argument.
That is, the career government functionaries/intel community induce his doctors to give him a hot shot.
I don’t think they have time to arrange a violent removal. And such could backfire by moving RFKjr up.
The 25th amendment is moot as long as Biden is conscious and has people aligned with him if he doesn’t agree. It would just get thrown into Congress where 2/3rds of both chambers must vote for removal.
Sometime between now and August 7th things will firm up
If an injection could solve for verbal miscues and mental weakness, you just know Trump would be getting stuck a couple times a day. Alas, there’s no remedy so potent to correct for the word diarrhea that the Orange Turd spews out every time he opens his mouth.
I’m looking forward to Trump’s convention speech next week. Sadly, his handlers will prevent a retelling of his insane boat electrocution rambling. Nevertheless I’ll take bets on two near certainties:
– Trump won’t be able to help himself from a diatribe both vicious and incoherent.
– No Republicans will ask him to step aside after just another public display of their candidate’s deterioration.
He was losing before the debate because he people thought he was too old. The debate answered that question for good. The sheer pathos of trotting him at lucid moments as if no one on earth has ever encountered an elderly person before is going to have no effect.
More importantly, you go with Biden and any argument for doing one’s duty and voting for the lesser of two evils goes down the drain. You can’t have a spectacle of leaks and back-stabbing telling people to grow up and vote for Biden because Trump will be the end of democracy. Biden’s the one who didn’t grow up and who threw the tantrum. Not the voters. Likewise, Biden losing is a just verdict on the fact that he should not be running in the first place. You can’t spin that away by pointing out how terrible Trump is. If Trump is so terrible, why did you run this guy?
The sports analogies are good ones. But only because sports doesn’t matter. Even if you’re angry at a blown call at the last second, you know, deep down, the outcome (barring gambling) has no effect on your material life.
Dr. Taylor I always enjoy your posts and I read with interest the responses to them. I consider myself a basic working class guy: enlisted man in military, firefighter/paramedic (union trustee) and middle school math and science teacher. I think a lot of people like me at this point are hearing about all the news and pundit rants and thinking, “Just STFU.” All we can do is a lot of GOTV and see what happens. Like you say, watch the crap shoot.
Possibly the most sensible thing I’ve seen on this subject. The most telling point,
A switch would create legal chaos. And I have even less faith the FedSocSCOTUS would deal fairly than I do that this will be the last time you have to write on this
I think a significant amount of this is motivated by opposition to Harris, who sits there ready to step in if Biden has real problems. This is why we see fantasies about an open convention or somehow finding Johnny/Jenny Unbeatable or whatever.
So segueing to Kamala Harris would not end the discord, apart from pissing off much of the Democratic base.
The Daily Mail digs into the “girl fight” that should keep the stay or go question vibrant.
@JKB: I think the term you were struggling to find (age/memory issues??) is “cat fight.” Nevertheless, the only reason you care about this issue at all is to sow discord among those you see as your political enemies despite their determination to see that you continue to live in a country where sowing the type of discord you specialize in remains legal.
When I first started visiting this site, you were still a voice with a unique vision for the country even though I didn’t agree with much of it. Over the years, you’ve become just another tiresome scold blathering the Kochtopus party line. While it may be true for a pony that “one trick to last a lifetime” may well be “all a pony needs,” you ain’t no pony and don’t got a trick no more. Rest up, hone your thinking skills and come back with some original material.
@JKB: You do know that the Daily Mail is a ridiculous tabloid on the level of the National Enquirer, don’t you? It’s right wing fan fiction.
Also note that the anonymous sources are “political insiders”. Not even “people close to the administration.” Is Karl Rove dead yet? Because if not, he could fit that description.
I wonder what insights Bat Boy would have on the women in and around the administration.
https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1812218627053252654
@Michael Reynolds:
Hang in there. This too shall pass. This was an unforced error by Dems and their sycophant media. Now media run like the pigs they are. But if Taylor is correct that he’s staying the course, media and pols will suddenly have epiphanies galore. Circle the wagons. I think most of the commentary here has been trivial. But I think you said the single most important thing: the money has dried up. Sadly, politics is money.
In any event, JB went O for Michigan as far as pols attending his event. Its called radioactive. Not a good sign.
1) No one has explained what these purported “legal challenges” are, and the fact that right wing goons have mumbled about raising them does not mean they are the least bit real. The Democratic nominee is the person nominated at the DNC, full stop. The applicable laws and rules are written that way because people have understood for centuries that sometimes people step aside or die prior to formal nomination. Don’t be a sucker and don’t make sh*t up.
2) The idea that the Biden war chest is so huge that it cannot be abandoned is just wrong. There is about $90m in cash, which is real money to you and me, but which would be easy to raise in a country of 350m people. The existing Biden war chest and field operation can be given to the party which can use it for the benefit of the nominee. It’s not that hard.
Long story short: Biden will step aside or he won’t, but the party’s hands are not irrevocably bound by a set of primaries that were run 4-6 months ago.
@alkali: I think there are a number of potential legal challenges as it pertains to the access of various campaign resources as well as at least the chance for attempts at blocking ballot access.
Without trying to detail these issues, I would direct your attention to the way that Judge Aileen Cannon has mucked up and delayed the Trump documents trial, which at one point seemed a slam dunk to go quickly to trial and to resolution.
And let’s not pretend like $90 million is nothing.
And while I think that the Biden operation can be handed over to Harris, that will not stop leagl challenges. Those challenges are likely to prove frivolous, but even a few weeks delay could be a serious setback.
Nor am I claiming they are.
Being “not irrevocably bound” doesn’t mean it would be easy or without unforeseen pitfalls. I am not claiming they HAVE to stick with Biden. I am arguing that there are risks and it would not be like handing over the keys of a rental.
In other words, let’s not pretend (as many are) that it would be seamless and frictionless.
@alkali: I have repeatedly voiced my concerns about this, and I am far from a “right-wing goon.” I did work in politics however, and here are the areas I see for potential litigation:
Ballot requirements – While you are correct that the nominee is the individual nominated by the DNC, there are two potential issues: one, states write the laws that govern how elections are run including when, where, and how a candidate’s name is placed on the ballot (and, conversely, the process to remove or replace candidates); and two, voters don’t really vote for the nominee, they vote for a slate of electors.
Each state has its own processes. Again, you are correct that there are typically rules in place about replacing a name, but this varies–some states have timelines, some states have strict parameters (e.g., a candidate’s name can ONLY be removed from the ballot due to death or infirmity. A candidate stepping aside voluntarily is neither a death, nor can it be considered an infirmity.) Any place where there is uncertainty–missed deadlines, or the question of whether stepping aside allows for a name replacement–is an opening for a legal challenge.
On electors–the rules that govern electors I believe are set out by the state party committees, and I have neither the time nor inclination to sift through all of them, but I can assure you that some GOP entry-level lawyers are doing this right now, probably focused on WI, AZ, PA, and a handful of other states.
Money & Contracts — Campaigns spend money under very strict rules, and switching at this point would throw a whole bunch of things up in the air, one of which would be the validity of media buy contracts. There is some speculation that the media buys are “probably” okay, because they were joint purchases between the DNC and the Biden-Harris committee. I’m willing to bet that those would be targets for Republican legal challenges, because forcing even a handful of media buys in key states to get gummed up and/or invalidated would free up that time for others to purchase.
Basically, anywhere there’s uncertainty, there’s room for a lawsuit. Having done political party work, the first thing you’d see would be a rush of GOP lawyers in states filing TROs (temporary restraining orders) wherever they could. They don’t need to win every case, they just need enough to cause chaos.
@Jen:
This.