Ridin' With Biden
I look at both sides of the Biden vs. Harris argument and conclude that we're not living in an Aaron Sorkin and Democrats have one choice -- stay the course
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.
If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in Fulton County. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!
Since I’d prefer people read what I’m writing these days rather than stick it behind a paywall, I’m making this post public (as I did on Friday). I’ve also left the comments open because I want to hear what all of you think about the current situation … but alas, I still need to keep the lights on here at Truth and Consequences World Headquarters, so this is as good a time as any to click the button below.
Not Good Bob, Not Good
Over the last few days, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and talking to smart political observers about the dilemma facing the Democratic Party since the Apocalypse in Atlanta (trademark pending). I’ve tried to approach this issue in the most analytical and empirical manner possible. But I want to make one point at the outset.
I have no particular affection for Joe Biden.
He’s a politician and a means to an end. In an era of deep partisan polarization— and as the Republican Party has been taken over by a raving lunatic and has no attachment to basic democratic norms — no Democratic president or politician is sacred. They are all replaceable. The only question is a political one: who is best positioned to keep Trump and the GOP out of the White House?
Don’t get me wrong—Joe Biden has been an excellent president. He pulled the United States out of Afghanistan, handled the wars in Ukraine and Gaza with deftness and effective diplomacy, and his legislative agenda is one of the most impressive since LBJ. I’m not overly concerned about this ability to carry out his duties as president in a second term.
But, if I thought he was likely to lose in November and there was a better option in the wings to take his place, I’d be the first person to push him under the bus. This is not the time for sentimentality.
The problem is I don’t.
To be sure, that puts me in a distinct minority.
Since Thursday, the nation’s political pundits have practically fallen over themselves to call on Biden to get out of the race — in what has been one of the most embarrassing and hysterical journalistic meltdowns I’ve ever seen.
Two of the more ludicrous suggestions have come from David Remnick and Nick Kristof.
Remnick’s lunacy surprised me because he’s usually pretty bright and level-headed, but this is embarrassing.
To stay in the race, at this post-debate point, would also suggest that it is impossible to imagine a more vital ticket. In fact, Gretchen Whitmer, Raphael Warnock, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore are just a few of the office-holders in the Party who could energize Democrats and independents, inspire more younger voters, and beat Trump.
First, writing a piece calling for Biden to withdraw and not mentioning his vice president, Kamala Harris, who would almost certainly be the most likely person to replace Biden, is problematic. Second, if you can’t be bothered to spend more than one paragraph on what comes next after Biden withdraws, you haven’t put a lot of rigor into this intellectual exercise.
Lastly, mentioning a bunch of Democrats and claiming without a scintilla of evidence that they could “energize Democrats and independents, inspire more younger voters, and beat Trump” is the political equivalent of playing fantasy football. I hate to break it to Remnick and the rest of the pundit community that has seemingly lost its mind over the last 72 hours, but we’re not living in an Aaron Sorkin film. In the real world of politics, there are procedures, processes, and consequences for rash decision-making.
In the real world of American politics, none of these other Democrats are well-known outside their home states. None have been vetted for a presidential ticket. None have any money or staff to run a campaign that would begin hours after they are theoretically chosen at the Democratic National Convention in late August.
And, there is no polling evidence, so far, that they would do any better than Biden.
Now, I’ll grant you that these numbers could rise after a new candidate is introduced … but they can also decrease when voters learn more about them. If you’re going to argue that Democrats should dump an incumbent president for a shot-in-the-dark candidate with little national name recognition, at least glance at the admittedly sparse polling data. Or maybe better, have the humility to acknowledge that your confidence about the political appeal of, for example, the governor of Maryland, who has had the job for about 18 months, may not be iron-clad.
In Remnick’s defense, at least he didn’t make a suggestion as bad as this one from Kristof:
Biden can resolve this by withdrawing from the race. There isn’t time to hold new primaries, but he could throw the choice of a successor to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Democratic Party has some prominent figures who I think would be in a good position to defeat Trump in November, among them Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce. And there are many others.
Sherrod Brown! Sherrod Brown! The only chance Democrats have to hold the Senate in 2024 is if Sherrod Brown wins reelection in Ohio, and Kristof is floating the idea of running him for president.
In short, jettisoning Biden for an unknown candidate comes with substantial downside risks that almost every pundit who has floated the idea has failed to consider.
If Biden drops out, he will almost certainly endorse Harris, and the party will rally around her because top Democratic officials will want to avoid a shit show at the DNC in Chicago — and because passing over a Black Female Vice President in a party dominated by Blacks and women would be a substantial political risk. Quite simply, it ain’t happening. We’re not living in the “West Wing” (the TV show, not the place inside the White House).
So there are two options for Democrats — Biden or Vice President Harris.
As I wrote last week, dumping Biden for Harris seems too risky, but I will try to investigate this question thoroughly.
I think there are four notable downside risks in switching from Biden to Harris.
Suppose Biden withdraws from the race tomorrow and endorses Harris. The media will spend two months until the Democratic National Convention talking almost exclusively about Harris (and it might continue until Election Day). If that happens (and it probably should), it will take media attention away from Trump. If making the 2024 race about Trump is the key for Democrats to win this year, it’s hard to see how this is a good idea or something Democrats should encourage through their actions.
As I wrote about last month, the one consistent poll result that offers good news for Biden is that he is maintaining his support with white voters. In 2020, he got 43% of the white vote. In poll after poll this year, Biden has been matching that number. Does swapping Biden for Harris erode the party’s support among white voters? Frankly, I can’t imagine it helps, and I find it very difficult to believe that nominating a Black woman for president won’t weaken the party’s support among some segment of the white population that might otherwise vote for Biden.
One of Biden’s biggest political problems to date has been a lack of support among Black voters, particularly Black men. Harris might help energize support among Black women, but as we saw in 2016, there was a sizable gap in support for Hillary Clinton between Black men and Black women. So, nominating Harris will not necessarily solve the Democrats’ problems with Black voters. Ironically, it could actually hurt.
Does dumping Biden upset or keep home Democrats who like Biden and don’t want to vote for Harris? Maybe, though I doubt there are too many Democrats so offended by the shift from Biden to Harris that they stay home. But perhaps the better question is: who are the voters that Harris picks up who Biden couldn’t? Maybe it is voters worried about Biden’s age, but I tend to think undecided voters who choose Trump over Biden will use Biden’s age as an excuse — and that the real reason has more to do with an actual preference for Trump. In short, I’m not sure Harris helps all that much — and considering that the post-debate polling shows no real change in support for Biden — it’s hard to argue that swapping the two of them bolsters the Democrats’ chances in November.
To me, this is the most compelling reason not to change horses midstream. What is the evidence that having Harris at the top of the ticket would lead to a better outcome for Democrats? Quite simply, it doesn’t exist except, it seems, in the guts of political pundits.
Now, intellectual rigor demands that I take the other side of the equation: what is the downside risk of keeping Biden on the ballot?
The first and most obvious danger is that he has another senior moment like he had on Thursday, which would feed even greater doubts about his ability to do the president's job. Every public Biden event between now and November will be like watching a tightrope walker.
Second, Trump is perhaps the most flawed presidential candidate in modern political history — and Biden is, at best, tied with him in the polls. If he can’t do better than his current lousy polling (and he blew a golden opportunity on Thursday to regain the political momentum), maybe dumping him is the logical move.
Third, there is a legitimate argument that Biden has not shown the ability to be an effective campaigner in 2024. If he can’t hit the campaign trail, debate, or even sit for an adversarial interview, it’s hard to argue that he should remain on top of the ticket. At the very least, it makes it difficult to say that a candidate so limited is the best choice to be the party standard bearer.
On the other hand, if he can do those things — and he’s had several normal campaign events since Thursday’s debate — then you probably have to roll the dice because the other option brings with it such uncertainty. There’s also the fact that we don’t even have any polling data that suggests the debate hurt Biden. The early post-debate polls show that the race has not fundamentally changed since Thursday (perhaps Biden’s age was already priced in by voters). Unless there’s a steep decline in Biden’s support over the next week, the logic of dumping Biden doesn’t add up. It’s not as if any of the other candidates offer any hope for a better outcome.
Replacing Biden with Harris is maybe a push — and you can’t jettison a sitting president for what is, at best, a push. Unless you know with absolute certainty that dumping the incumbent is a winning move that increases the party’s chances of winning, I don’t see how Democrats can risk creating so much uncertainty this close to an election.
To be clear, these are not great choices for Democrats. An aging candidate who will have a media microscope on his every move between now and Election Day, or a vice president with significant political liabilities who is untested as a presidential candidate and is likely to take the media attention away from her lunatic opponent.
Four months until Election Day, Democrats are in a sub-optimal situation. But for better or worse, riding with Biden is pretty much the least worst option — and, really, the only choice Democrats have.
Musical Interlude
Your daily reminder that the Supreme Court sucks. Yes, today’s immunity decision is as bad as it seems.
On a positive note, Steve Bannon is in prison.
Musical Interlude
This entire discussion is illegitimate unless those urging Biden to step down can demonstrate two things. 1. that they have previously urged candidates to drop out after a single bad debate performance, and b. that they demanded Trump drop out after being convicted of 34 felonies. In what world is a bad debate performance against an equally bad debate performance worse than being charged with crimes in four jurisdictions and being found guilty of 34 felonies?
If they did neither of these things, I don't want to hear from them now that Biden "needs" to drop out. He doesn't. An honest pundit would be saying both candidates had an equally dismal debate performance. It won't move either's followers or voters but the media has feasted on Democrats' panic, fear, weakness and faithlessness. I'm sick of the media-driven hysteria over this blip. I know I will vote to keep American women human beings, something Trump has promised to end.
Here's the deal: BIDEN IS LOSING! We can debate how badly but he's behind! He's behind in a majority of national polls and a majority of state polls which he needs to win the electoral college. His only viable path to 270 right now is holding all the blue states bluer than Michigan, and then winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (or, I suppose, Arizona). That's an insanely narrow path to the presidency. Sure: the options other than Biden aren't initially promising, and if you're ahead then you don't rock the boat.
We aren't ahead. We're behind. To use sports as a metaphor (as Nate Silver did): we're behind a touchdown or a field goal with a quarter to play. Is Biden the guy you want going for a touchdown (because tying isn't enough)? No. Lord no. In the past I was swayed by that same argument you made (and made it myself), but I am not convinced anymore. I thought Biden would gain after a decent debate where he proved he was not, in fact, a drooling man in the throws of dementia. He failed this lowest of bar test (which isn't to say he proved he's mentally gone: but that performance was awful).
And again, this was Biden's strategy not mine! Biden planned an early debate to reset things and steady the boat. He instead made it worse, and put Biden farther behind. I see no reason to think things will get better. Your strategy is just 'hope the electorate changes its mind for reasons unrelated to the campaign' which, when you're losing, is a bad strategy.
So yes: give me Kamala Harris, who may still lose but at least offers the chance of victory. I don't see it right now with Biden, and that pains me to say because that means I was dead wrong to support his renomination when he announced he was running again.