Sure, an Open Competition to Replace Biden Would Be Divisive and Chaotic. But So What?
There are a lot of pundits and reporters and sources out there speculating about what an open competition to become the Democratic nominee for president would look like, should Joe Biden be convinced not to seek reelection. (That’s a possibility that’s looking ever so slightly more likely with each hour that passes, and each report about mandatory napping that is published.)
They’re talking Gavin Newsoms, they’re talking Mayor Petes and Governor Whitmers, they’re leaking polling data about who would do best head-to-head against Donald Trump … it’s a free-for-all. But there are other pundits and sources out there trying to shut that discussion down—and frankly being a little smug about it—by saying that it would be “nearly impossible” in that case for the nominee to be anyone but Kamala Harris. Some are doing this because they would want the nominee to be Harris. Others just think it’s a political reality and speculating otherwise is frivolous and fanciful.
It’s admittedly an easy argument to make. Harris is the vice president, the president’s legal successor. There’s no law that says she’d have to succeed him on the ballot; vice presidents can be replaced on a ticket, although it hasn’t happened since the Truman administration. Still, were Biden to announce that he was releasing delegates at the Democratic National Convention in August to vote for someone else, it would not be surprising if he then endorsed Harris, which would likely carry a lot of weight with delegates who’d been planning to vote for her already as veep.
There are plausible reasons for Biden to head off a competition by giving such an endorsement. It would prevent rivals for the nomination from attacking each other and revealing damaging information or other weaknesses that could be exploited by Republicans. Harris (but not other candidates) would have direct control over the $200 million-plus raised by the Biden/Harris campaign committee. That’s a lot of money, and money is important.
By virtue of her current position, out of all the potential candidates, she also probably has the most existing relationships with important donors and party officials. She would be positioned to secure immediate support because many of these people know and trust her (see her as their best route to access and status in the next administration). A smooth succession would prevent the emotional stress and potential brand damage inflicted by intraparty chaos (rude quotes attributed to “a Democratic insider”).
Here’s something to consider, though: Emotional stress and intraparty chaos are not that big of a deal. Feelings are usually hurt in primaries, and who cares? It rarely (never?) results in long-term damage to the resulting nominees. There has never been a whinier Democratic primary than the one held in 2008, and Barack Obama won the general election that year in a landslide over John McCain. Later, Trump seemingly alienated many Republicans by trashing McCain during the 2016 primary. Trump went on to win the general election. Then McCain died and Trump said he was probably in hell.
There’s also the possibility that Democrats try to hand the nomination to Harris only for things to go sideways. Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign was a notorious mess that ended with a falling-out between her and her advisers. She’s had similar problems with staff turnover in the White House. Several of the sources in Wednesday’s Reuters story about her inevitability spoke with a tone of resignation, not excitement, about the possibility of her candidacy. (When the people in charge of making a decision say it would be “nearly impossible” not to make a bad one, perhaps it is time for them to do some self-reflection about their own agency.)
If a candidate is selected in an open process, Democrats are even more likely to quickly rally behind them. As a Twitter thread by Aaron Regunberg of the watchdog group Public Citizen observed, the imperative to find a candidate who has one sole qualification—being able to beat Trump—is already motivating a cross-ideological movement to replace Biden, uniting centrists, liberals, leftists, and whatever Ezra Klein considers himself to be. It is a climate that would be uniquely friendly to any candidate besides the current one. (As Jonathan Alter writes in the New York Times, Biden could also threaten to withhold his eventual endorsement from any other Democrat who engaged in negative campaigning or other chaotic behavior.)
Let’s assume that Dems untangle themselves from their current plan to hold a “virtual” July nomination vote for arcane formal reasons related to Ohio ballot access. A competition culminating in the convention would also have major upside: It could benefit the party’s moral standing, which is arguably important, and generate huge “earned media,” which is definitely important.
The party’s leaders have been insistent to the point of pedantry that “democracy is on the ballot” in the race against Trump. Now they have a chance to act like it! Whenever the question is asked in a poll, large percentages of voters say they would like to see a major-party candidate besides Trump or Biden. (Half of respondents in a Pew poll said both candidates should be replaced.) Thousands of delegates deliberating (on television) to select such a person would be a substantive response to those voters, and proof that democracy does actually matter to Democrats. The event would further direct national attention onto the new nominee, who would likely have also completed a gantlet of interviews, appearances, and risky TikTok drug-consumption challenges that honed and validated their camera-readiness. It would be a name-recognition bonanza.
And it would also be very good for creating “clicks” for news and opinion websites that have been suffering from reader fatigue after the pandemic and the chaotic Trump years. Please, our families are starving!
