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?)
