Post-Debate: What's Next for Biden

President Joe Biden (D-DE)

If you've read this blog for a while, you will know that I have a pretty strict policy of not watching political debates.  In my lifetime, I am confident that I have watched at least two straight through, both in 2008 (one of the early 2008 debates, the one where Joe Biden says that his favorite thing about Dennis Kucinich is his wife, which I watched because I was an undecided voter and wanted some guidance, and the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden & Sarah Palin...mostly because I wanted to see what would happen).  Otherwise, while I have seen clips of the debates before, I do not watch them.

There's a variety of reasons for this.  First, I think they're boring.  I like convention speeches because I think it's fun and party rah-rah (though I don't watch all of them), but debates are not about substance and learning the candidates' issues.  They are about seeing who has the most presence and who has the most pizzazz.  If debates were the only thing that were important, we'd only nominate people like Oprah Winfrey or George Clooney to be president...a presidential debate is about someone who can play the president on TV, not about who can actually be president (at least in the modern sense).  I'm also not an undecided voter-the reason I watched in 2008 during the primaries was I was an undecided voter, and the reason I researched and watched clips during the 2020 primaries was that I was an undecided voter that year too, but for a general election debate, I'm a Democrat always, and that ain't changing because my candidate clearly had a cold.

So how I follow debates is I read the commentary afterward, I try to suss through what is real & what is just panic, what will stick, and what won't.  Last night, based on the commentary, it sounds like Joe Biden, particularly during the first 30 minutes of the debate, did not deliver.  He was hoarse, seemed non-energetic, and was not aided by the format, particularly Dana Bash & Jake Tapper's inability to fact-check Trump in real time (not surprising, particularly for Bash, one of the worst figures in modern journalism, and perhaps something he should've negotiated into the debate conversations with the Trump camp).  Despite Trump regularly lying, Biden will be considered the loser of the debate, and he will have lost in the worst way possible-by underlining the thing that's held him back most in his campaign, that he's too old to be president.

Politics, I'm going to be honest, is going to be insufferable over the next couple of weeks as Biden critics will have an eager round of "I told you so's" (to be fair, with validity) and we wait to see if this debate (likely one that was little watched) has any impact on polling that Biden is already sluggish in (I'll be real-it's possible I take a sabbatical from political writing for a week or two save for Trump's running-mate if the only thing that we have to talk about is Biden doomerism as that's not good for my mental health).  While Biden has gained ground in the national polling, his swing state polling, particularly in Nevada, Arizona, & Georgia, is not what a winning candidate has, and safer blue states (specifically Virginia) show him losing ground.  It is unlikely that this will help those numbers.

Practically speaking, there are a few things that Biden should consider in the next couple of days.  First, he will need to do damage control.  The one part of the debate I did watch last night was his post-debate speech, which was good (and had many people asking "where the hell was this guy during the debate?").  It is unlikely that Trump will allow a second debate even though one is scheduled (it would make no sense for him to unless Biden rebounds dramatically in the coming months in the polls, likely only an option if Trump is incarcerated), so Biden needs to find a way to get in front of the public as much as possible and disprove what they saw at the debate.  Volunteering for town halls on MSNBC, PBS, and the major broadcast networks would be a smart start, question-and-answer events where he interacts with voters, which is more in Biden's wheelhouse than a traditional debate would be.

He also needs to consider a change in leadership in his campaign.  Despite being linked forever due to the administration they shared, Biden is not Barack Obama.  He is not good at synthesizing planned attack ads and turning wonkish political speech into off-the-cuff attacks.  What he is good at is being a "regular Joe" who genuinely cares about people, but doesn't handle DC nonsense (aka malarkey) well and takes glee in pointing it out.  The most discussed (in a positive light) moment of last night appears to be Biden saying that Trump has "the morals of an alley cat" which honestly does not feel like something that his campaign would've pre-planned, and is more "Joe being Joe."  This is what you need more of-I've met Joe Biden, he is an incredibly gifted politician in person, better than any person I've ever seen at making an instant connection to people, and part of that is his natural authenticity which it looks like his campaign staff tried to beat out of him in hopes of tripping up Donald Trump last night.  Biden is down in the polls, he just lost a debate that most Democrats (including me) assumed he'd come out the winner...he needs to replace someone in his campaign.  Whether that be his campaign Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez or Campaign Chairwoman Jennifer O'Malley Dillon or Chief Strategist Mike Donilon, a big name needs to go and be replaced by new blood, as this isn't working, and he needs to bring in someone who is loyal to the Democrats, but not a longtime Biden aide who is able to tell his staff "no" when they have a bad idea.  Nicole Wallace, who had key roles in the Bush 2004 and McCain 2008 campaigns, once said about staff "no staffer is important, we are literally the people you drive the bus over, we're dispensable"...it's time for Biden to get out the bus.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

These won't be the focus though.  Most, including some figures I was surprised by, will call for the most dramatic turn-of-events: Joe Biden drops out of the presidential race.  I'm going to discuss what happens in that scenario, but I'm not going to say whether it's a good idea or not...because this happened last night.  Before I get into it, I want to say two things.  First, it is not too late for Biden to drop out, but it is only a good idea if the campaign truly doesn't think he can win. and the alternative can.  Trump is an existential threat to democracy and to the world...Biden's champions needs to realize that if Biden is truly going to lose, then stepping aside at the 11th hour is the right decision.  Joe Biden is a personal hero of mine (I have a photo of him on my wall that I can see from where I'm typing this), but I'll be real-if one of the names I'm about to list as alternatives were guaranteed a win and Biden only had a chance, I would throw him aside in a heartbeat.  The Jamaal Bowman post-loss blowback shows that some people get so attached to politicians they think they're worth the risk of losing to a Republican-I am not one of those people...the Democrat winning is more important than winning with a specific candidate.  So don't think of my skepticism as loyalty to Biden, because while I have that, it's not-I'd easily take someone else if they had better odds.

Second, it's not clear that this had any impact, or that it had enough impact to matter in November.  Politicians lose debates all the time and then go on to win.  Just ask Walter Mondale, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney whether it was better to win their first debate (which they all did) or whether it's better to win the election (which none of them did).

With that said, here we go.  Let's say that next week, Biden (getting an early read on internal polls), is pressured by those in his tight inner-circle to drop out.  Key figures in Biden's life (Barack Obama, Ted Kaufman, Ron Klain, maybe even his wife Jill) say "Joe, this is more important than you, and you're not going to win."  It's still not clear he would (except for maybe if his wife was saying it)-Biden, like most politicians, has a gigantic ego, and it's possible no one can talk him out of this, but for the sake of this article let's assume one of those people has the magic words, and he steps aside for new blood.  Here's what would happen.

For starters, the media's focus wouldn't be on who the Democratic nominee would be-it would be on whether Biden can complete his current term in office.  Biden saying "I don't think I can complete four more years of this" would quickly turn into easy attacks from Republicans saying "he can't complete the next six months!" and he would be under heavy pressure to explain to the American public why they should trust him in 2024 but not in 2025.  When you're explaining, you're losing, and this would be a legitimate question that would dog Biden and his replacement nominee: "do you have confidence in Joe Biden's ability to be president?"  It's an easy attack, and was honestly the biggest issue with Biden not running again from the start.

Second, the nominee would have to be Vice President Kamala Harris.  For starters, she's the second-in-command, and was elected in 2020.  There would not be time to have a new primary before the convention, and the convention delegates are largely going to be loyal to Biden (because they're his delegates), and Harris makes the most sense.  Most Democrats when they say that they want someone to replace Biden, they start dreamcasting as if other people are an option, but they aren't.  Harris is a member of the administration, and she has higher approval ratings from certain sections of the Democratic base (specifically Black women) that any Democratic nominee needs near universal support for.  Dumping Harris for another candidate would turn those constituencies off, and you can't afford that when you're already losing.

Harris is not necessarily a better candidate than Biden.  Polling has shown that she's gained in her stance versus Biden against Trump, but she still is losing.  She's also not a naturally gifted retail politician like Biden (or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama...the only examples of Democrats who can win the White House in the past 40 years).  While she's better than she was in 2020, Harris is stiff and too wonky.  She's not a natural politician, but instead more in-line with the "natural statesman" routine that Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton embodied-the kind of person who "makes a better president than a candidate."  But when you're down in the polls, you need a closer, and it's clear what America wants is both someone younger than Trump/Biden (which she is...there would be no criticism of her age) and someone who will open a new chapter for America.  She wouldn't-she'd represent a continuation of an unpopular Biden administration, but without Biden's natural retail politicking skills.  She needs four more years before 2028 to be able to establish herself better in the American public's eyes to be viable.

This is the conundrum, and this is where the conversation would end in reality, but I'm going to stretch credulity for a second because I want to discuss why a third option is still not great.  Let's say there was a way to get Harris out of the race.  It wouldn't involve her staying on as VP (that's insanity...she wouldn't stay as #2 for anyone that would delay her 2028 chances other than Joe Biden), and skipping her would be political suicide.  The only logical situation I can think of that might get her out of the race would be if you could get the former California prosecutor on the Supreme Court, which (again) would involve one more major ego (someone like Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan) stepping aside in favor of Harris.  I honestly think Harris would get confirmed, that wouldn't be an issue (though there'd be a very real possibility that she'd have to break a tie to confirm herself, which would be an odd look), but I don't think she'd want to take the Supreme Court over a presidential nomination, even if it's one she could lose.  Additionally, if confirmed, she'd resign the vice presidency, and with Republicans in charge of the House, we'd have to risk six full months of Trump loyalist and 2020 election denier Mike Johnson being one 81-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.  But just to underscore how rough the next part of this would be, let's suspend belief and say this happens-Harris replaces Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)

The issue here is that this now opens up a brokered convention where anything can happen, and the Democrats can't afford anything to happen.  Conventions are not like they were in the 1920's, where a smoke-filled room of strategists pick the best option on a list.  It's a group of activists across the country who have their own preferences, and given that power, would suddenly be in a situation where we're forging compromise tickets that could make no sense.

This is because most Democrats, quite frankly, would make terrible counters to Trump in 2024.  A lot of the names thrown around either hurt the ticket or hurt-the-cause.  Pete Buttigieg, a name frequently mentioned, a man who might make a good running-mate for Kamala Harris in 2028, would be awful in 2024.  He's too inexperienced, too wonkish, and too smart (America votes for smart candidates, but only if they're clearly "cool" like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama...Pete Buttigieg is not cool).  Lots of names don't feel ready or aren't vetted enough; JB Pritzker, Raphael Warnock, Tim Walz, & Andy Beshear are all candidates who should consider running in 2028, but are too unproven to run now.  Other names that have run either didn't initially click with the American public (Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren), or in Bernie Sanders case, are too old to run at this point.  The former group might make a good candidate in 2028 (after all, Joe Biden ran twice for president before he got the nomination & won), but it'd be an insane risk.

For my money, there are two names that I think could work in a pinch and pull off a victory on short notice, and those are Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, both two-term governors who lead large states, and are clearly good at national-scale retail politics.  Neither have run for president, but in Newsom's case he's been the best surrogate on the campaign for Biden (even if he's also stolen the spotlight for himself), and in Whitmer's case, she's obviously good at this if you've followed her career, and would come with a tailor-made base-of-support in a vital swing state (plus, she'd have midwestern roots to help with the Blue Wall).  I think one of them would ultimately get through a convention if Democrats could get past Biden, Harris, and Sotomayor, but even then...they'd have to pull off another miracle.  It's likely they'd have to compromise on a running-mate, maybe even running together, which would be a terrible look (an all-white Democratic presidential ticket in 2024 is insanity, particularly given that they'd be replacing Kamala Harris...you'd need one of them to not just be the bigger person to give up the top spot, but also to give up the second spot to someone like Cory Booker to have a winning ticket).  Newsom/Booker or Whitmer/Booker are attractive options & maybe the best to offer for 2024...but think of what I just needed to do to make that happen (and also remember they're both unproven...great-on-paper doesn't always mean great-in-reality).  I needed to convince four extremely ambitious public figures to put their own egos aside (with no proof that they couldn't stay on and be fine), as well as assume that a convention of thousands of people would pick the right candidate, and not pick someone else who wouldn't be favored like Buttigieg or Warren.  It's not realistic.  Biden dropping out, even if it's the most practical option...it's too late.  The Democrats, if they want to stop Trump, will need to elect a man who was not able to rise to the occasion on one of the most important nights of his campaign.