What the Democrats Need to Do to Get Out of Limbo
Democrats have three options when Biden steps aside
It’s now not a matter of if but when Joe Biden will step aside as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. It’s not just that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries aren’t accepting Biden’s definitive “I’m in” as the correct answer to what they consider a multiple-choice question. Or that it appears there’s a coordinated effort to turn the daily drip-drip-drip of legislators calling on Biden to stand down into a cascade. Or that donations to the campaign are down 50-75% from a month ago. It’s that Nancy Pelosi has her knives out, something the savviest Democratic politician of our generation wouldn’t do unless she knew she would prevail. As one Pelosi ally told Politico, “There’s nothing subtle about Nancy. She starts with the question ‘What’s it take to win?’ then works backwards.”
I’m not too distressed by the Biden campaign’s insistence that the president intends to remain in the race. If they didn’t officially say that, they’d be making major news. The longer this drags on, though, the more painful it’s going to get. At this point, the question Biden is facing is if he wants to bow out with his dignity intact or not.
I suspect Democrats want Biden gone before the start of the Olympics, when the nation’s attention will turn for two full weeks to the exploits of Simone Biles, Katie Ledecky, and Sha’Carri Richardson. That’s not because they don’t want Biden to drop a bombshell during the middle of the Olympics, but because they don’t want their post-Biden afterparty crashed by medal ceremonies. That does bring up a really important question, though: What will the afterparty look like?
At this point, Democrats have concluded nearly any alternative to Biden is preferable to Biden and have therefore been preoccupied with pushing the president from the race than with figuring out what comes next. Hopefully those discussions are happening, because if you think the divorce has been messy, what follows has the potential to turn into a massive family feud. Don’t think that once Biden drops out that Democrats will be able to take a few days to catch their breath before setting out to find a new nominee. Politics abhors a vacuum, especially one at the top of the ticket, and ambitious politicians and interest groups not only won’t wait for the party’s éminence grises to figure out what to do, but they may not even accept their plans. If we’re lucky, Biden has already decided to step aside and Democratic big wigs have spent the weekend talking with party insiders to ascertain the best way forward.
Broadly speaking, Democrats have three options available to escape the political limbo they find themselves in. I assess those options below. Remember: This debate isn’t just about who becomes the nominee, but how the nominee is chosen (which not only effects who is chosen but their legitimacy as the party’s leader.)
OPTION #1: PROMOTE KAMALA HARRIS
ADVANTAGES
It’s the most natural move: It makes sense, right? Just follow the line of succession. If the president is no longer able to serve as president, the power passes to the vice president. Ergo, if the presidential candidate can’t continue as a candidate, the nomination should pass to their running mate. Handing the nomination to Harris would simply amount to handing the nomination to the person at the head of the line.
It’s the least contentious move: Some Democrats will want a more open process, but that talk can be tamped down relatively easily by simply claiming the party is following an established line of succession. If there are party members who want to argue over the ticket, they can focus on influencing Harris’s vice presidential pick. More importantly, though, anointing Harris avoids a drawn-out nominating process that could drive fissures through the party late in the election season. Most pundits anticipate Democrats would fall in line if the nomination passed to Harris.
Harris is already vetted: Having run on a national party ticket, opposition researchers from both parties have already combed through her past to flag anything that might come back to haunt her on the campaign trail. If there are skeletons in her closet that have yet to be exposed, there may already be plans in place to deal with them. Democrats can feel pretty confidant a scandal won’t upend her campaign a few months from now.
Harris has name recognition: Harris won’t need to spend weeks introducing herself to the American people. Voters won’t feel they can’t vote for her because they neither know who she is nor know enough about her.
Harris is by definition already “qualified”: The vice president is supposed to take over for the president if the president cannot carry out the duties of the office, so that makes the vice president “presidential” by definition. No other Democrat under the age of 75 (with the implausible exception of Michelle Obama) could claim similar proximity to the president, which means every other Democrat would immediately be scrutinized to see if they have the gravitas to serve as president.
Harris is the most prepared to campaign for president: As part of the Democratic ticket, she’s already on the campaign trail. She’s got a stump speech and she knows the talking points. As vice president, even if she isn’t part of Biden’s inner circle, she’s getting foreign and domestic policy briefings. She has a much shorter learning curve.
A Harris campaign provides continuity in terms of campaign themes and logistics: No matter who the Democrats nominate for president is, their campaign will look different from Biden’s. Harris, however, can provide the greatest continuity with Biden’s administration, which can help reassure voters who are already behind Biden but perhaps skeptical about switching out nominees. Much of Biden’s campaign structure could easily transition to a Harris-led campaign, and there may be legal and campaign finance advantages attached to passing the nomination on to the current nominee’s running mate. Harris can easily grab the baton and continue the race.
Harris can improve Democrats’ standing with young, female, and minority voters: Polls indicate Harris runs stronger than Biden among these voters, many of whom are unenthusiastic about the current president and drifting away from Democrats.
A Harris candidacy would likely keep Biden in the game: Biden will likely feel bitter about being pushed out of the race, but he would probably still feel invested in the success of the person he selected as his running mate. Biden could be deployed to vouch for Harris with constituencies (namely older white voters in the Rust Belt) that Harris may struggle with. Granting Biden the opportunity to anoint his successor may also allow him to reassert his standing as the head of his party and ease his anger with Democrats, which may come in handy if Democrats need the sitting president to deal with an October surprise.
Selecting Harris would avoid aggravating the one politician who would feel aggrieved if they weren’t selected as the Democratic nominee—Kamala Harris: No other candidate could claim they felt slighted by being passed over for the Democratic nomination in 2024. Harris could make a strong claim that the nomination should have gone to her this late in the game. Harris wouldn’t sabotage the Democrat’s chances, but party leaders probably also want to avoid a couple weeks’ worth of headlines about a sullen and embittered vice president. And while I don’t buy that there would be a groundswell of Black women enraged that the Democratic Party passed over the chance to nominate the first woman of color to head a national ticket (Black voters think more strategically than that, which is why they rallied around Biden in 2020 rather than Harris) that argument would still surface and potentially embarrass the party.
DISADVANTAGES
There are doubts about Harris’s campaign skills. When Harris entered the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, many pegged her as a favorite to win the nomination given her connections to multiple Democratic constituencies (progressives, women, minority voters.) Despite appearing good on paper, though, her campaign fizzled early in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and she dropped out long before people began voting. She simply couldn’t connect with voters. I attribute it to her roots in California, where, given the state’s size, successful statewide politicians like Harris have to be better at winning over the state’s power brokers than as practitioners of retail politics. Running for president doesn’t require the retail skills necessary for running for Congress, mayor, or a statewide position in a smaller state, but given the scrutiny that comes with the position, they need to be relatable and capable of putting people at ease as a candidate. Harris struggles in that regard: She often comes across as canned and programmed. Some argue Harris has gotten better on the stump since becoming president, but the doubts remain.
Harris may not be a demographic fit for the top of the ticket. This is hard to write, but the reality is that many persuadable white voters in the must-win states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would have a hard time voting for a Black woman from California’s liberal Bay Area. This is 2024, not 2008. In an era of cultural politics—when trust is earned through superficial signifiers—Harris may not be the candidate to get Democrats to 270 electoral votes. Of course, Harris could allay some of these concerns with her VP pick, but voters ultimately vote for the presidential candidate, not the running mate.
Harris runs only slightly ahead of Biden in the polls. The good news is that it does appear Harris fares better than Biden in most polls, but only by a point or two. If that gap is widening, that may be more of a function of Biden’s plummeting numbers rather than a sudden surge in support for Harris. It makes little sense to replace Biden with a well-known candidate whose poll numbers are only marginally better than his. (Of course, with lesser-known potential candidates suffering from a lack of name recognition, there may not be a candidate outside Michelle Obama who initially outpolls Biden.)
Harris may not offer enough of a break with Biden. If voters are upset with Biden over inflation and immigration, they may extend the blame to Biden’s partner in the White House. The good news here is voters’ frustrations with Biden appear mostly age related, as the Democratic brand remains strong. Harris could benefit from that. But if Democrats really want to pass the torch to a new set of leaders, put some distance between the party and the Biden administration, and neutralize many of Trump’s Biden-centered attack lines, they may be inclined to move on from Harris as well.
Promoting Harris would not be the most democratic option. While it makes sense to follow the line of succession and simply promote Harris to the top of the ticket, some Democratic constituencies may demand a more open process. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the Democrats in battleground districts and states currently calling for Biden to step aside prefer a candidate with more centrist appeal. There’s the chance that if Harris is crowned the party’s nominee that these Democrats would cry foul and start pushing an alternative, which could lead to a contentious convention and deepen party divides.
OPTION #2: LET PARTY INSIDERS PICK THE NOMINEE
How would this work? When Biden drops out, he would announce he is asking a committee of Democratic leaders (chaired in all likelihood by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi) to select a presidential ticket that can unite the Democratic Party and defeat Donald Trump in November. The party would follow this route if they wanted to move on from Harris.
ADVANTAGES
Democrats would (probably) end up with the best ticket possible. This is close to how the parties used to pick their nominees pre-1968. There would have been a lot more political bargaining involved back then (and it would probably return at a smaller scale this time around as well) but the idea is that party insiders are in the best position to weigh and accommodate the interests of the various constituencies within the party while balancing that against the need to assemble a ticket that can win in the fall. My guess is party insiders would want to find a qualified presidential candidate who has demonstrated they can win in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, and then select a running mate who balances the ticket as much as possible along racial, gender, economic, and ideological lines. This is how the party ends up with a Gretchen Whitmer-Cory Booker/Wes Moore ticket, which, on paper at least, would be a formidable team.
Democrats would almost certainly end up with a fresh face. Which is what voters want. The ticket would be a break from both Biden and Trump. Trump would attempt to attack the nominee as a Democrat, but the generic Democratic brand is actually holding up fairly well, as swing state and district polls show. At the same time, Trump could be cast as an old and exhausted political relic whose time on the national stage has passed. Voters are dreading a Biden-Trump rematch. They might reward Democrats for listening to them and offering an alternative.
The process could avoid intraparty conflict…so long as Democrats trust the process. It seems a lot of progressive politicians fear this option because they are worried the party will end up with a nominee who is less progressive than Biden has proven to be. This route has the potential to ease those concerns if the selection committee can assure progressives (and other interest groups) that the new nominee not only stands a better chance of winning in November but will also continue to pursue Biden’s pro-labor and surprisingly progressive agenda. In fact, that deal can be worked into the selection process, as the nominees can commit themselves to an agenda as a prerequisite to their nomination. That’s a surprising advantage of this option: Picking a candidate in a so-called “smoke-filled room” can actually more easily facilitate the bargains that can unite the party.
DISADVANTAGES
It’s not democratic: Democratic constituencies could feel they were being marginalized by this process. Anyone who felt slighted, from interest groups to potential candidates, would likely criticize the committee along these lines.
The process could end up being too clever by half. The campaign trail tends to weed out bad candidates. (For an example, see “DeSantis, Ron.”) Democrats don’t want a nominee who ends up flubbing basic foreign policy questions or delivers uninspiring speeches. Picking a candidate by committee without testing them first runs the risk of selecting a ticket that looks good on paper but bombs on the biggest stage in politics.
The process could look stage-managed. Plucking two candidates out of thin air, declaring them fit to serve in the highest offices in the land, and then sending them out on a tightly-controlled introductory tour may not only lead voters to wonder if those candidates have what it takes to lead the nation but if there is another power (Obama? Pelosi? Biden? Hillary? The Washington Elite?) telling them what to do behind the scenes. It would be easy to paint the candidates as puppets.
Democrats may not have enough time to introduce the candidate to the nation before Republicans brand them. This is always a challenge when picking a VP. Just look at what Democrats have already done to J.D. Vance, who is quickly becoming known as the guy who endorsed a nationwide abortion ban with no exceptions and called Trump “American Hitler.” A Democratic presidential nominee would be establishing their credentials for the job at the same time as Republicans are tearing them down.
Biden and Harris would have to go along with the plan and accept the new nominee. Biden could undermine the process by insisting the party should not select nominees this way. Harris could insist she was unfairly passed over. Even if Biden and Harris were somehow forced to accept the process and nominee, they could spend the fall sore about what happened to them and seize on any missteps as proof the Democratic establishment screwed up by pushing them from the race.
OPTION #3: AN OPEN CONVENTION
In this scenario, Biden would announce the next nominee must be selected by the delegates at the Democratic convention. Perhaps a committee would identify a handful of candidates they consider qualified to run. Or maybe it would be a wide-open contest that would play out over the next few weeks, culminating at the convention. Maybe Biden would even run himself! It could be wild!
ADVANTAGES
It’s the most democratic process. With the Democrats unable to hold primary elections, an open convention—with the delegates treated as the representatives of the people—is the closest Democrats can get to a democratic selection process. That can lend legitimacy to whoever comes out on top. It also means public opinion will probably factor heavily into the decision.
The nominee will have to prove him or herself politically. The candidates will need to campaign, give speeches, and sit for interviews. They’ll need to persuade delegates, elites, and the public that they have what it takes to be president. In other words, to win the nomination, they’ll need to do what it takes to win the presidency.
The momentum the nominee builds from the convention will carry over into the general campaign. Instead of culminating in a simple announcement/coronation, the nomination process will instead culminate in an earned moment of triumph. That creates momentum the nominee can take with them onto the campaign trail.
It’s the most exciting process. As others have written, the Democratic nomination process will feel like a reality TV show. It will have drama, and people will want to tune in to see what the candidates have to say and to see the results of the votes. The convention has the potential to be one of the most riveting political events in recent American political history, which could energize voters.
DISADVANTAGES
It may be the most democratic process, but it’s still not a very democratic process. The people are still bystanders to the convention and don’t play an actual role in selecting the nominee. That could be a problem: What if the delegates, who have their own independent judgment, motivations, and will, defy public opinion and select a candidate who isn’t the people’s preferred choice? In a weird sense, it may be more democratically legitimate to elevate the vice president (whom millions of Democrats have already voted for) or to let a committee select the nominee (since they would want to take public opinion into account) than to endorse a process that can disappoint the people it purportedly engages.
A three-week campaign and an open convention may favor candidates with unfair advantages. Candidates who have developed a deep roster of donors could swamp the campaign with money. Those who hail from states with lots of delegates could dominate early rounds of voting and squeeze out other quality candidates. (If you suspect I’m thinking about California Governor Gavin Newsom, you’re right.) With such a condensed campaign calendar, Democrats could end up with a less than optimal candidate.
Democrats may nominate a shallow media star rather than a skilled politician. There won’t be much time to thoroughly vet a potential nominee. Impressions will be made quickly, which could favor a flashy politician who turns into a poor general election candidate rather than someone who can withstand a grueling three month race.
A convention could be terribly divisive at a moment when Democrats are seeking unity. A contested convention could reopen the split between progressives and moderates, which Biden had smoothed over. Aggrieved factions might express dissatisfaction with the eventual nominee. Voters who had their hopes up going into the convention may walk away feeling they were better off with Biden. The new nominee may have to spend precious time bringing those voters back into the fold, if they feel motivated to return at all.
The convention could turn chaotic. Just as it took weeks for Republicans to select a new Speaker of the House, what if Democrats can’t pick a nominee by the time the convention is scheduled to end? What if tempers flare and the convention descends into acrimony? A contested convention could become a self-inflicted wound that demolishes the Democrats’ reputation as a responsible party.
The convention wouldn’t be held until mid-August, costing the party critical campaign time.
Which is to say, a three-week campaign blitz leading into a contested convention would be a long way for the party to go to simply end up nominating Kamala Harris. After all, nearly every delegate at the convention is a Biden-Harris delegate. And Harris would likely enter the convention as a favorite. And if the convention does turn contentious, Harris would likely be the candidate who could smooth over the disputes. If there is the sense that Harris is inevitable, maybe Democrats should just designate her their nominee as soon as possible.
There is no clear way forward for Democrats. There is no ideal process, and there is no guarantee Democrats will end up with the best candidate possible. The debate over how to select a new nominee and who that nominee should be could easily prove more divisive than the current debate over replacing Biden. That’s a debate worth having and resolving, though, because there is a near consensus that the party is better off taking their chances with a new nominee than standing by Biden.
Signals and Noise
The Biden Campaign Crisis
At least three dozen members of Congress have publicly called for Biden to step aside.
Politico reports the Michigan Democratic Party cut Rep. Hillary Scholten out of a coordinated effort between the party and the Biden campaign to boost the Democratic ticket after Scholten called on Biden to step aside two weeks ago. Scholten represents a toss-up district centered on the Grand Rapids area. Officials reversed that decision on Thursday.
The Trump Campaign
By Brian Beutler of Off Message: “Trump Reminds Democrats He’s Beatable—Against A Party That Can Fight” (“The cursed few of us who watched Trump’s speech to the end saw a paper tiger, but it’s not as though Trump ran a textbook campaign until last night. He got convicted of 34 felonies just a few weeks ago! He’s backed terribly unpopular ideas, boasting repeatedly of his responsibility for overturning Roe v. Wade. And yet he’s been leading—neck-and-neck at worst—the whole way through. Watching him flail through another bizarre speech doesn’t suggest Democrats’ misgivings about President Biden have been misplaced. Rather, it suggests that Trump’s weaknesses have gone unexploited, because Democrats have been poorly situated to exploit them.”)
By David Frum of The Atlantic: “This Crew is Totally Beatable” by David Frum (“Whatever the explanation, Trump demonstrated in Milwaukee that President Joe Biden is not the only national politician diminished by the years. Trump too is dwindling into himself, even more isolated from such facts about the external world as elapsed time and audience impatience.”)
By Tom Nichols of The Atlantic: “A Searing Reminder That Trump Is Unwell” (“Yes, Biden is old, and he’s having trouble communicating. The people expressing serious concerns about him have good reason to worry about both his health and his ability to defeat Trump. He might be out of the race by next week. But Trump is mentally and emotionally unwell.”)
Politico counts all the ways that the Republican Party on display at the RNC—isolationist, populist, muted on abortion, hostile to some business interests, embracing cultural icons that run counter to their traditional cultural inclinations, disdainful of mainstream Republicans, in thrall to Trump—is a new Republican Party.
The Washington Post charts the gap between the economic nationalism on display at the RNC and the Trump campaign’s pitch to megadonors.
The New York Times looks at how Trump’s pro-tariff/pro-tax cut agenda would hurt poor Americans most and increase economic inequality. Matthew Yglesias of Slow Boring writes that Trump’s tariff proposals open the door wide open for corruption.
Megan Messerly of Politico writes about how no one talked about abortion—a core animating issue for Republicans for decades—at the RNC. One delegate from Louisiana even told Messerly, “But a lot of people in the party are realizing that we should not be trying to judge somebody’s life, dictate how somebody lives their life, and they’re focusing more on the policies that are good for all Americans.” CNN chronicles J.D. Vance’s record on abortion, which includes calling for a national ban.
The New York Times looks at how Trump foisted his own party platform—which, among other things, toned down language regarding the party’s position on abortion and federal debt—on the RNC platform committee.
By Stef W. Knight of Axios: “The GOP’s Big, Mysterious Enemy: ‘They’” (“To Trump supporters speaking here, “they” are responsible for Trump’s convictions in New York, his federal indictments, his multimillion-dollar fines in civil lawsuits, record illegal border crossings — and even the attempt to assassinate Trump last weekend.”)
J.D. Vance’s wife Usha, the daughter of Indian immigrants, is facing a racist online backlash from far-right social media posts.
The Washington Post writes about how the RNC featured far-right fringe figures despite its theme of national unity.
Kiara Alfonseca of ABC News reports the GOP’s calls for unity ring hollow to the United States’ LGBTQ community.
By Sidney Blumenthal for The Guardian: “To His Supporters, Trump is a Martyred Messiah, Resurrected After Crucifixion”
The SEC is suing the CEO of the blank-check company that merged with Trump’s media company for fraud, alleging he lied for months about his plans to pursue any potential merger.
A far-right extremist who had already served time for participating in the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally and was sentenced to jail last week for stealing a police shield and using it against law enforcement officers during the Capitol riot (during which he gave a Nazi salute) used his sentencing hearing to endorse Donald Trump for president.
Trump’s Legal Cases
Tierney Sneed of CNN writes that even if special prosecutor Jack Smith overturns the dismissal of Trump’s classified documents case on appeal, he will still have a hard time removing Judge Aileen Cannon from the case.
Public Policy
The Biden administration cancelled another $1.2 trillion in student loans for public service workers.
The Media
Colby Hall of Mediaite writes that MSNBC is dabbling in conspiracy theories about Trump’s assassination attempt. (I’d add it’s also taking a beating over some of its hosts’ defense of Joe Biden.)
Editor’s Note
Sorry I haven’t shared more television/movie and album reviews of late. Part of the problem was that I hadn’t watched or listened to anything interesting recently. Then my time was overtaken by a crazy month of news and travel. I have listened to a great album recently that I am eager to share with you, though, so be on the lookout for that soon.
I’m travelling a lot over the next couple weeks, so I may not have time to write, although I may feel compelled by events. So as they say, I’ll see you when I see you. And always, thanks for reading.