Will the Democrats Endure the Biden Revenge Years?

President Joe Biden with Symone Sanders-Townsend

Symone Sanders-Townsend is a name you likely know if you watch MSNBC or follow politics, but isn't a household name in the way some White House staffers (or MSNBC reporters) have become.  Sanders-Townsend has a solid history in Democratic politics, working first in Nebraska for figures like former Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle, and eventually getting her big political break in 2016 working for Bernie Sanders as his campaign spokesperson. Since 2016, she has alternated between stints working for major political campaigns (working for both the Biden campaign and as Kamala Harris's chief spokesperson), and on cable news, including briefly getting an eponymous show on MSNBC called Symone.  Sanders-Townsend, though, expressed a statement this week that I wanted to take a look at, because it struck me as intriguing, mostly because it was targeted at, well, people like me.  She said, after President Joe Biden stepped aside as the nominee, "Joe Biden deserved the dignity that the people of his party did not give him over the past few weeks," essentially saying "Joe Biden deserved better than how he was treated the past few weeks."

It should not be a shock that Sanders-Townsend liked Joe Biden, after all of this; most people who have worked for Biden have expressed fondness for him, and she has spent much of her post-White House time expressing support for the current president.  But the need to point out the anger that she's feeling, and I think a lot of Democrats are feeling, with how Biden left the race is something real, and something that needs to be mentioned because while Democrats are currently rallying around Kamala Harris as her campaign shifts from zero-to-sixty...these hurt feelings are not going to go away at the end of this campaign.

I say this because we've seen it before.  Look at the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections.  Hillary Clinton was expected to win both of these primaries from the outset, and in both cases, Clinton faced a very spirited challenge.  The first one, she lost against Barack Obama and the second she won against Bernie Sanders.  But you see since then that both of these contests are being re-litigated over-and-over.  I promise if you go on social media for longer than five minutes you will find people accusing the DNC of rigging the 2016 election in Clinton's favor, and indeed, those feelings seemed to carry forward to 2020 when Sanders lost for a second time to Biden.

It's not just supporters, though, that carry this forward-it's also the candidates.  Bill & Hillary Clinton, in particular, are kind of famous for leaning in hard when it comes to congressional campaigns and whom they support.  Contested primaries featuring someone who endorsed Obama/Sanders over Clinton's campaign oftentimes have resulted in one or both of the Clintons supporting the opponent.  A good example of this is the 2012 CA-30 race between Brad Sherman & Howard Berman.  Berman had endorsed Obama in the 2008 primaries, but Sherman had been an early supporter of Clinton's in 2008.  Bill Clinton stepped in and endorsed Sherman, who later won.  FL Senate 2010, CO Senate 2010, PA-10 2012...all of these races featured Bill Clinton stepping in and endorsing a candidate (essentially on his wife's behalf) who had stood by her in 2008 against a candidate who had backed Obama in 2008.  This is something that candidates have done (not just the Clintons, but also Sanders and to a lesser degree Obama) in the years since.

One wonders if this is something on the Bidens' agenda.  Unlike Clinton in 2010-12, the Bidens don't have an obvious path forward to run for major office again; Joe is too old to go for another office, and honestly so is Jill, and neither of their children appear to have any interest in the family pasttime.  Each presidential couple finds post-presidency a bit different, and it's possible the Bidens may not be as involved in Democratic politics after they leave the White House in January.  But I do think there's something to Sanders-Townsend's comments-there is a clear anger from the Biden camp that this was happening.  As someone who actively pushed on social media for it, I'm one of those people who love Joe Biden, but was hoping that heaven-and-earth would be moved to get him out of the race, and I stand behind that.  Sanders-Townsend is right that he was treated poorly...she's wrong in that it wasn't necessary.  Had we just dismissed the debate performance, Biden might've won...but probably not.  And that made his tearing down unfortunate but (imho) necessary (we'll find out for sure in November if Harris wins).  But in the same ways that Obama, Clinton, & Sanders have continued to fight about their long-finished primaries...I do wonder if we'll see in the coming years Joe & Jill Biden remembering who stuck by them in the past few weeks, and who pushed them aside the hardest. 

Biden, Harris, and a New Day for Democrats

I'm aware I'm two days late (it's been a very busy 48 hours in John World in addition to the real world, and that needed to take priority), but I couldn't let the biggest political news cycle of the election (or indeed, of the last few elections) go by without my thoughts.  So you know what's coming-five thoughts on the recent changes in the Democratic Party.

President Joe Biden (D-DE)

1. Joe Biden Steps Aside

On Sunday, President Joe Biden issued a statement declaring that he did not intend to continue to pursue a second term as president.  This comes after not just a horrendous debate performance in late June, but also after almost a year of Biden being behind in the polls, and weeks of Biden being asked by longtime allies (including a number of members of Congress), to stand aside as the nominee.  Biden becomes the first incumbent president since Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to not seek a constitutionally-allowed term, and the first president since George Washington to do so when he was pretty much guaranteed the nomination.

Biden's decision will be dissected by historians for decades, and I don't know that I can do it justice in one article (we'll go back to this).  I want to say a few things though.  I've talked on this blog a lot about both Biden being my personal hero (I had a photo of him hanging on my wall when I was 14, and he was just the junior senator from Delaware...a quick reminder that I grew up in rural Minnesota, not a place where you generally idolize random senators from the Mid-Atlantic).  I still have a photo of him on the wall of my library (different photo, but still).  Watching him get taken down the past few weeks has been hard for me, and I suspect hard for many people who have loved him and voted for him many times (he is the only president I've ever met, and was a total mensch in real life).

But it was also necessary.  It had become clear before the debate that Biden was not going to win unless something dramatic happened, and when that something dramatic happened (the debate)...it was something that made his candidacy even less palatable.  I said repeatedly on this blog that it was more important a Democrat beat Donald Trump than Joe Biden beat Donald Trump.  Biden, in an intensely courageous act, ended up agreeing.  The Democratic Party proved itself today to be a party run by a man of principle, and a man who cared more about the policies that he had spent his whole life championing than his own personal ambitions.  I can honestly say I've never been prouder of my hero, and I can think of few times I've been prouder of being a Democrat.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

2. Kamala Harris Becomes the Presumptive Nominee

With Biden out of the race, the burden of being the nominee is now open, but not really.  While there are other names that will be tossed around (briefly Joe Manchin was considering it, which is maybe the funniest joke I've heard in a while), the reality is that no one will beat Vice President Kamala Harris, who has the endorsement of not just President Biden, but also both of the Clintons, and pretty much every ten minutes another congressional Democrat.  Harris, as the sitting vice president, is entitled to all of the campaign cash that the Biden-Harris campaign has raised (any other Democrat would have to start from scratch), and also inherits the campaign's impressive infrastructure, which includes 100+ GOTV stations across all of the major swing states.

Harris, of course, ran for president in 2020 before becoming Joe Biden's running-mate, so this will be her second presidential campaign.  This isn't how she expected to run (undoubtedly, she was assuming her next shot at the White House was in 2028), but when you're the VP, you always have to be ready to take over, and in this case, she appears ready.  She has spent the past few weeks handling an impossible situation flawlessly (defending Joe Biden while also auditioning for the top spot, knowing it was a very real possibility).  She also has several key advantages over Donald Trump that could matter, principally her age.  Harris is nearly 20 years younger than Donald Trump (who is going to face far more scrutiny about his age now that Joe Biden is out of the race and Trump assumes the mantle of the oldest major party nominee in American history), and honestly, she looks over 30 years younger.  She also has more stamina-it'd be easy to see Harris doing a couple campaign stops every day for the remainder of the race without breaking a sweat...Trump cannot keep up that kind of pace, and likely will rely on his running-mate to help that gap.  Harris will be a very potent and very serious nominee right out of the gate, and at this point appears to be (according to delegate whip counts) cruising to win on the first ballot.

Harris with Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, one of the states
she will need to gain ground in the coming days

3. Harris Starts to Win Back Ground in Fundraising & Polling

Harris has three major jobs in the coming days: introducing herself (and her VP) to the country, raising a mountain of cash to make up for the fundraising dip that President Biden experienced over the past few weeks, and getting her footing in the polls.

Two of these will be easy.  Harris is very likable, and honestly I think will catch on fast with the public.  She's going to be demonized by the right, but unlike Biden & Hillary Clinton, she's going to be harder to define because she doesn't have decades of voter records and impressions for the Republicans' to have a head-start with.  I also think it's possible the Republicans are going to overplay their hand in the same way they did with President Obama, and lean too hard against her on racial attacks (Donald Trump has repeatedly launched racist attacks against his opponents...it usually repulses swing voters).

Harris also will have the money.  In the time since her announcement, she's already raised $100 million, and has commitments for $150 million more in PAC money.  She also has both her VP announcement (which is a great fundraiser), her inevitable first public events with Biden and Obama, and the DNC (which will be another moment to tap into Democratic pride).  At the rate she's currently going, she will likely have more money on-hand than Trump before the DNC even starts.

The biggest question, though, is around polling.  Biden's polls are bad, catastrophic even.  On the day he dropped out, for example, he was down by 7-points in Michigan (Democrats don't win the White House if they lose Michigan).  There are several questions hanging over this election, and the biggest has been-will Harris be able to succeed where Biden hasn't?  There's signs that she could.  Voters have perpetually said they want someone other than Biden or Trump (they'll now get what they want), and Senate polling for Democrats in the Senate, specifically, is really, really good.  But House polling had also started to suffer under Biden, and any chance at a blue majority in either house of Congress will rely pretty significantly on Harris closing the gap and starting to exceed Trump in the major swing states/districts.  We will also learn whether or not the country, who of course did not elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 (even though she won the popular vote) will finally elect a woman as president this November.  There are a lot of good signs for Harris, and members of Congress in swing states/districts like Tammy Baldwin, Emilia Sykes, & Susan Wild were lining up behind her on the day of the announcement (which they wouldn't if they didn't believe she could deliver them a top-of-the-ticket victory).  But we will find this out soon (though not too soon...I would regard any polls for the next week or two to be fuzzy as voters get used to the new race).

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), a frontrunner
for the VP slot

4. The World's Shortest Veepstakes

Harris will not just have to launch herself, but with the DNC just days away, she will also have to launch a vice presidential nominee, more than likely by the end of next week.  I will be doing a separate article about Harris's VP choices, and which names you're likeliest to hear, but I'll give a little preview now.  I do expect her choice to be a straight, white man with statewide elected experience (as either a governor or senator).  There are names like Pete Buttigieg & Gretchen Whitmer that are floating around, but Harris, already putting a lot of risks on her ticket, seems unlikely to go for a second one by nominating the first openly gay VP or the first all-female ticket (it's worth remembering-only one all-female ticket has even won a Gov/LG election together, and that was Massachusetts in 2022).  It's possible that Harris, trying to make up a polling deficit, will attempt to level-up in a place like Arizona, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania by naming a favorite son as a running-mate...though as I'll get into in the article later this week, I think that could be shortsighted if the candidate doesn't bring more to the table than a swing state.  Suffice it to say, we'll get a lot of auditions in the next few days, and Harris will have to quickly make a decision that most campaigns devote months to deciding.

Former President Donald Trump (R-FL)

5. Trump is Now in a Corner

I did not forget about the Republican ticket in all of this.  Donald Trump is still the Republican nominee, and as of this writing, still the frontrunner for the general election, given that the Democrats have not consistently led in swing state polls since at least October.  But Trump is now in a corner as a candidate.  He is now the oldest major party presidential candidate in American history, and will have to fend off the attacks that Biden had been receiving for the past four years (Trump, let's face it, has aged a lot in the past four years...it's going to show a lot more against Harris).  He has a less-defined opponent, one whom he barely attacked at the RNC, and one who will be able to campaign more than he can.  Trump is also stuck with JD Vance, which was a choice he made assuming that the Democrats would be stuck with Joe Biden.  I think on some level it never occurred to Trump that Biden might give up the nomination (the idea of relinquishing power for the good of others, I'm confident, has never occurred to Donald Trump), and he wanted to pick a mini-me clone, but Vance is a bad campaigner (look at the recent Diet Mountain Dew jokes) and Trump's chance to pick, say, Marco Rubio or Joni Ernst (someone who might've added to his base) is gone.

The biggest question for Trump, though, is if the clear lead he's had all election cycle is because voters hate Joe Biden or if they just want Trump back.  It's a legitimate question.  Polling is impossible, as I mentioned above, for figuring out how much ground Harris is capable of gaining, but it's possible that this is a fool's errand for any Democrat, and Trump is just inevitable.  However, I don't think that's going to be the case.  For years (even before the 2020 election) voters were saying "really-these two old guys are the best we can do?" and the Democrats being the party who said "we heard you, you said you wanted someone other than Biden or Trump...we did that" might be a gambit that pays off.  While it doesn't always work, giving voters exactly what they asked for isn't the worst strategy.  

Harris also has clear voters to go after.  In Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, & Wisconsin, the Democratic Senate candidates have been leading for almost all of 2024 (same with North Carolina Governor).  So Harris has an opening here to specifically target those voters who are either Trump/Dem Senate or Undecided/Dem Senate, as they are open to the party.  If all it was was Biden apathy, Harris can tap into that and get some very easy points before doing the hard work of going after voters who are undecided across-the-board (and getting her base out for her).  But this is the starting point she should be at, and I would imagine in the coming days (there's a reason she's kicking off her campaign in Milwaukee), that will be her plan.

Biden's Last Stand

President Joe Biden (D-DE)

I apologize for the lack of any other political discussion on here (I promise, once Trump announces his VP, I will be doing an article about that, which, for the record I'm currently predicting to be JD Vance), but we are going to do another article in the Biden "will he or won't he" debate this morning.  President Biden has two high-profile dates with the press in the coming days, and unlike some of the more recent interviews he's done (where questions were shared with the radio interviews he did, and his ABC News interview was with a former Bill Clinton campaign staffer who most definitely wants a Democrat to win in November even if he can't say so out loud), these are higher-stakes and more rife for error.

I say error because, quite frankly, I don't see how Biden's campaign recovers at this point (i.e. there's no good that comes out of these other than the status quo).  This has gone well past the point of "turn the ship around" and we are now at a case where the Titanic's orchestra is playing while Rose is spitting in Cal's face...the damage is done, the iceberg is hit.  Trump's approval ratings are up and Biden's polling position is even worse than before.  Forget focusing on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan...at this rate, it would be a real question whether or not Biden would be able to win Minnesota or Maine (or the popular vote).  Fundraising, after an initial sugar high of support for him, has dried up, and major donors like Abigail Disney and George Clooney have stated their lack-of-support for the president.  And to top it off, high-profile Democratic officeholders like Lloyd Doggett, Peter Welch, and Earl Blumenauer have called for Biden to step aside.

Much of the Biden camp's attacks in the past two weeks have been on the media, not a typical color for the Democrats (this is more something that the Republicans try), and they aren't totally wrong.  The New York Times, which at this point needs to be described as a "conservative-leaning" newspaper under the leadership of AG Sulzberger, has gone off-the-rails in trying to take Biden down in the past year, and that has only been exacerbated by the post-debate conversation.  But figures like Doggett, Welch, and Blumenauer are not anti-Biden figures.  These are all men who have held office as Democrats for over 40 years (in Blumenauer & Doggett's cases, over 50).  These are men who only want success for the party, all of them just a few years younger than Joe Biden, and all of them almost certainly with personal relationships with the President given the decades they've served together in DC.  They are not the types of people, quite frankly, you'd expect to be going against a sitting president...they are the troupers not the antagonists, the ones who show up, do the work, and support the party.  And they're all openly going against the president.

It's worth noting it's not just them.  Nancy Pelosi, the party's most ardent champion in the past 25 years, has openly discussed replacing the president in about as clear of a way as she can publicly (ultimately saying this is "Biden's choice" but given Biden has repeatedly said he wants to stay in the race, her continually saying this can make anyone with two brain cells realize she thinks he needs to change his choice); it's hard not to assume that she's more blunt in her conversations with Biden privately, if she can get through to him.  Reports have come out that Chuck Schumer is open to replacing Biden, and yesterday it appeared that the Congressional Black Caucus (the bedrock of a Biden campaign) has seen fractures (though none from its members publicly) over whether to have Biden step aside in favor of Harris.

Not only are these people who only want the Democrats to win, they're also figures that have seen Biden up close in the past two years.  It has become clear at this point that the administration didn't have him doing press conferences and interviews for a reason-the presidency has aged him, and there is no undoing that-you can't make someone younger, and America has shown that they are uncomfortable electing a man that old, even if Donald Trump is almost certain to suffer from the same issues as president given he's basically the same age as Biden.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT)

The two high-profile moments for Biden, quite frankly, should be seen as something else.  Biden has been an exceptional president, in my opinion, particularly in terms of repairing America's global relationship after the Trump years, and his press conference after NATO, if done right, could highlight that.  He could talk about how the relationships the United States has with NATO, with Taiwan and Ukraine and championing democracy around the globe, needs to survive beyond party lines.  He could talk about how Trump is alone in his party, that figures like Nikki Haley & Mitch McConnell are alongside Democrats like Biden and Harris in believing that NATO is the bedrock of western democracy.  It would be a good reminder that in order for America to be the leader of the free world, we need to have consistency in respecting the goals of democracy, and a good capper on why the Biden years (provided Trump loses in November) will be remembered extremely well by historians.

And then, on Monday, on the eve of the RNC, Biden could announce that he will step aside.  Biden will be holding the interview with Lester Holt, and will be doing it at the presidential library of Lyndon B. Johnson, the only president since the 1950's to voluntarily not run for reelection.  LBJ's chosen successor (his vice president) losing that election later isn't a great look for the Democrats, but it would still be a powerful symbolic gesture, with Biden understanding that he cannot win this election.  Miracles happen, but counting on a miracle in politics is a bad look and certainly a bad strategy, and Biden is never going to be the one to rally the party after the past two weeks-the damage is done.

That would be the right strategy.  It is not clear that Biden has the courage or the humility to take it, though.  Biden spent his whole life wanting to be president, and while he achieved that dream, he's forgetting that in legacy-building, he needs to beat the guy who ran against him the last time, and if he can't do that, he needs to remember that history will be very kind to him if Harris does the job for him.  There is some sense that the Biden camp has entered a "bunker" scenario where they aren't listening to reason, with figures like Jill & Hunter Biden and Ron Klain simply refusing to acknowledge the inevitable (that this is over for Biden, but there's still time for the Democrats if the Biden cares enough about success that they can't gain from).  Whether it's out of fear for Harris's abilities (which I think are overblown-in an election where voters' #1 concern was "can I have someone to vote for other than Biden or Trump?" actually giving them what they asked for is going to make the Democratic Party seem more rational) or out of sheer ego (Biden's camp likes to point out he's the only person to beat Donald Trump-having Harris do it will make that claim less special and less part of his legacy), the Biden camp seems determined to cling to the sinking ship long enough that they can go down with it.

I do not know if Biden will get out of the race.  On Twitter, I compared this to the fight between an unstoppable force and an immovable object.  Will Biden's better judgement give in to a party that wants him to leave, or will the ego of an aging, 81-year-old politician who has never lost a general election get in his way?  The only person who can say for certain is preparing for a press conference today.  What I do know is that Joe Biden won't win in November with this kind of a coalition & campaign, and given he has shown no ability to repair either...the only way Democrats can win is without him.

A History of Replacing a Losing Candidate

Jon Grunseth (R-MN)

In 1990, Jon Grunseth was the Republican nominee for Minnesota's gubernatorial race, and just six weeks out from the election, he held a slim lead in the race against incumbent Democratic Governor Rudy Perpich.  Perpich was deeply unpopular, which was true for a lot of governors in 1990 (the economy was in the tank), but had what seemed like a godsend to his campaign just three weeks out from the election (one of the quintessential October surprises).  Grunseth was accused of sexual impropriety with two teenagers in the early 1980's.  It was a huge scandal, and almost certainly would've reelected Perpich were it not for the Republicans pulling off the impossible.  After an additional extramarital affair (with an adult woman) came to light closer to the election, Grunseth withdrew from the race, and was replaced on the ballot by State Auditor Arne Carlson, who had come in second to him in the primary.  Carlson would go on, with just eight days of campaigning, to beat Perpich and serve eight years as Minnesota's (very popular) governor.

Twelve years later, Democrats were facing a dilemma.  Having just won the Senate majority with the party switch of Jim Jeffords, they were struggling to hold onto their majority, and one of the big reasons was because of New Jersey.  Senator Bob Torricelli was initially favored to win in the blue state but an admonishment from the Senate Ethics Committee had taken a toll on his approval, and by September, it was clear that he was going to lose a winnable seat to Republican Doug Forrester.  The only way for Democrats to win was to replace Torricelli, and on September 30th, Torricelli dropped out of the race, being replaced by his longtime political rival (but fellow Democrat) Frank Lautenberg, staging a comeback as Lautenberg had retired from the Senate just two years earlier.  Forrester sued, saying it wasn't fair that Lautenberg could get in after so many filing deadlines had passed, but the liberal New Jersey Supreme Court said that Lautenberg could stand for reelection, and while the Democrats didn't end up winning the majority that November, Lautenberg won reelection, and would stay in the Senate for the rest of his life.

Generally when a political candidate is replaced late in the contest, it's because the political candidate has died.  In the same year as Lautenberg, Sen. Paul Wellstone passed away in a plane crash and was replaced on the ballot by former Vice President Walter Mondale.  But in the cases of Grunseth & Torricelli, they were able to stand for reelection-this wasn't a case where they had died or even been jailed, and them running for reelection was impossible.  The reason they dropped out was because they weren't going to win, and their party had a candidate on deck who could win.

Let's be clear-when we're talking about the current situation involving President Biden, this is what we're really talking about.  People will pontificate about whether he's fit for the presidency, whether he's too old, but ultimately...this is about whether or not he can win.  If Biden was leading in every swing state poll headed into the debate, the Democrats wouldn't be having this panic attack (okay, they would, but it wouldn't be this pronounced-Democrats have no chill as a rule).  Very few people think that Biden is incapable of leading the country through January.  Even me, who is at this point on record with saying I think he should step aside, has no concerns about him completing his term.  I do think that, given what we have seen in the past few days, expecting him to run the country for four years is a question mark, but I'll be real-that's why we have vice presidents.  If Biden was able to win, I'd have no problem reelecting him even knowing that there's a decent chance Kamala Harris finishes his next term.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Politics ain't beanbag, and while I don't believe in breaking laws to win, I do think if you have to choose between losing honorably and winning sneakily...you take the latter.  Grunseth & Torricelli should've been forced to stay on-the people had chosen them, they'd chosen poorly, their opponents had run better campaigns, and they deserved to get their victories.  It was the fair thing to do.  But why lose when you can win?  In life, you have to win the game in front of you, and if we have a chance to put a new game in front of the Republicans given we're losing the current one, I think it's okay to say we'll take it.  No Democrat is ever going to say this out loud because it's horrible politics, particularly on a national scale where something like a Grunseth/Torricelli has never been attempted, but that's the reason the Democrats are running scared right now.  They think Biden's going to lose a race they should be able to win, and if they've got some room to still do it, they want a second chance.  

What's happening to Biden right now is rough & it makes me feel genuinely sad not just for the country but for him specifically-Biden's been my hero since I was 14, my absolute favorite politician, and seeing the most honorable man in American politics get crucified by his fellow Democrats in hopes of taking him out of the race is darn near unbearable (this is very much an "I can't believe we did that" moment in Democratic politics we're all going to have to do some soul-searching on later).  But it's hard not to look at what Carlson & Lautenberg did, getting those checkmarks, and not think that ultimately it was worth it.  If Biden is forced out and Harris wins in November...we'll look at this as a necessary evil of this race, where we didn't win fair but we still won.

The Biden Campaign Needs a Reckoning, and Perhaps It's Time for Harris 2024

Joe Biden & Nancy Pelosi in happier times

In the wake of yesterday's immunity hearing, where the Supreme Court basically declared that the presidency is tantamount to being a king, the November election has been framed in such a way that it's now a contest between democracy (Biden) and dictatorship (Trump).  But the focus, therefore, has become even sharper on the presidential nominee for the Democrats.  Joe Biden continues to suffer fallout from his presidential debate, where he instilled enough doubt that Democrats, in this case elected Democrats, have started to very publicly decry him.  

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX) became the first incumbent Democrat in Congress to announce that he thinks that President Biden should step down.  Sen. Peter Welch (VT) has called out Biden's campaign for being "dismissive" of criticisms.  Rep. Angie Craig (MN) has stated that she wants to see Biden on the campaign trail, no teleprompter, to prove he can still do this.  Rep. Jared Golden (ME), in perhaps the most ill-guided opinion piece I've read this cycle (and that's saying something) seemed to imply that Biden is sure to lose, but that Trump won't be that bad (I'm not linking it, you can find it...the DCCC would be wise to just abandon him at this point if this is what he's going to do-we can get a majority elsewhere).  But most importantly, Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker and one of the most important Democrats in the country (one who has known Biden for decades) stated in an MSNBC interview "I think it's a legitimate question to say 'is this an episode or is this a condition?'"

Pelosi was quick to state that she wholeheartedly supported Biden and that she expected to see him inaugurated in 2025, but she knew what she was doing here.  Pelosi has been in politics for decades, is not known for making gaffes in interviews, and said this pretty clearly & deliberately.  From my perspective, Pelosi was trying to do one of two things.  She was either trying to get into the Biden camp, telegraphing her displeasure with what the President's attitude has been since the debate (there have been repeated news items stating that Biden has not been in contact with key House & Senate leaders, which is not necessarily true-Angie Craig, for example, stated that she had spoken to the campaign since Thursday, and there is a conference call today with Democratic governors).  But if this is true, this is a way for Pelosi to get Biden's attention, and it should send out warning signs-if she can't get ahold of him, who can?

Second, Pelosi wants to float the trial balloon of Biden getting replaced.  It's starting to become a vultures circling moment.  Biden is down by 6-points in the latest CNN poll, while Kamala Harris is only down by two-points, and the crosstabs indicate she'd have a lot of upside.  With the exception of his fundraising (breathtaking) and his North Carolina speech, he has handled pretty much everything since the debate horribly (I'm not gonna mince words in this article-I'm pissed).  He has given no other major speeches, and today is only appearing at a Virginia fundraiser.  Initially this was his only scheduled campaign stop, until heavy criticism led to announcements of him running in Wisconsin & Pennsylvania.  It's important not to put the chicken before the egg here (it is possible these were planned but not yet announced), but this should've been something they were on top of.  Biden's first sit-down interview will not be with an impartial journalist, but with George Stephenapolous, a former strategist for Bill Clinton (Biden is hardly playing hardball here) who now works for ABC News.  It is increasingly looking, as Pelosi put it, like a condition.  Biden's stamina, despite a pretty hefty spring (certainly compared to Trump), is slipping at the point where he needs it most.

I continue to waiver between whether or not he should jump or not, but if this is the kind of campaign he intends on running, Biden should not stand for reelection, and I am turning to the mind of "I want him to go."  Trump is going to win if Biden campaigns like this, and with that, Biden will have ended American democracy.  This is starting to feel less like a rallying moment, and more like the entire party starting to visibly beg Biden to get out in the same way it felt like Dianne Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not understand that they were putting their legacies & the American public at risk.  I'll be honest-Harris is a safer bet to me at this point than Biden, and I am hoping that Biden is genuinely realizing that he might join historical figures like Neville Chamberlain if he's not careful.  The only thing anyone will remember about him if he loses in November is that he couldn't defend American democracy.

Gov. Tim Walz with Vice President Kamala Harris

We have not really talked in-depth about a Harris campaign, so let's make a few cursory looks at what Harris would (and wouldn't) bring to this conversation (you'll note I'm not entertaining the prospect of another person being the nominee because that ain't happening).  Harris, for starters, would get to keep all of the money.  The campaign finances, which in Q2 was a quarter-of-a-billion dollars, is pledged to Biden-Harris...anyone else would have to forfeit that money, though one wonders if Biden could transfer pretty much all of it to them, but Harris has access to all of it legally and right away.

Harris was criticized for not being ready-for-primetime in 2020, when she flamed out in a primary some (including me) thought she had the prowess to win at the start.  She's gotten better at that, particularly in retail politicking (she's less stiff than she used to be, though she's nowhere as comfortable with it as Biden or Bill Clinton), and she's getting better in interviews, though she's still somewhat reserved.  Her approval ratings have also shifted from 2020.  That year, Biden was better-liked by Black and Latino voters, but at this point Harris has better numbers with these key constituencies, which Biden has seen rougher numbers with all 2024.  Keep in mind, recovery in Black and Latino voters could make the difference in some polling for Harris compared to Biden in states like Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.  There's not a whole lot of evidence suggesting that Harris could suffer with white men, other than Biden was uniquely good (for a Democrat) with this constituency, and the assumption is that she would (presumably) be closer to Hillary Clinton's numbers with this constituency, which specifically in Pennsylvania would require her to find more strength in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh's metro areas because she'll crater more in the middle.  Wisconsin and to a lesser degree Michigan and New Hampshire would also be states to watch if she did indeed suffer with white male voters who went for Biden in 2020 but not Clinton in 2016.

Practically speaking, if Biden can drop out in the next week, I think Harris would be fine (even if there are some state filing deadlines that have passed).  There has been erroneous reporting stating that the DNC wants an early virtual nomination to stop any talk of a switch, when in reality this is to get around a potential issue with Ohio's election laws.  July 16th is the start of that process-exactly two weeks from today.  I am going to be honest-I think that'd be enough time for Harris to be able to engage in an all-hands-on-deck switch.  95% of all Democrats are going to vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee, and 100% of the delegates will get behind Biden's choice.  The VP list would need to be done quickly, but anyone with access to Wikipedia could tell you who Harris would need to interview.  She'll want a straight white man who is 60 or younger, preferably with some connection to either the Midwest or the Southwest, and one who doesn't cost the Democrats a Senate seat.  She'll want someone ready-from-the-start, so it'd have to be a senator or a governor, and there are just four men who fit that bill: Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ) and Govs. JB Pritzker (IL), Tim Walz (MN), & Andy Beshear (KY).  Anyone else would be too risky.  We're already playing with fire by doing this so late, so she won't pick an all-female ticket, she's not going to go with someone like Pete Buttigieg because with so little testing, she's not going to risk nominating a gay man as there won't be enough time to see how voters would react (that's blunt, but real, and I say that as a gay man).  Personally, I think she'd be down to Walz or Beshear.  Pritzker's business connections are too risky to vet this quickly, and Kelly's stances on firearms would be a tougher sell (though his popularity in Arizona might make it worth the risk).  Walz & Beshear are both two-term governors with crossover support.  Walz is older and a bit less-polished, but also has military experience, while Beshear is more telegenic and younger, but comes from a line of politicians (his father was also governor) and unlike Walz, isn't going to shore up a state Biden has struggled with in polls.  Either of them works-I suspect she'd pick one of them.

The biggest upside of Harris, though, is that she's got upside.  Opinions aren't formed of her yet.  She could lose by more than Biden would've, but it's time to admit that, on the current trajectory, Biden is looking at a defeat.  A small defeat, and sometimes telegraphing a small defeat ends with a win (just ask Katie Hobbs).  Harris, though, could win with more confidence-she is smart, she would take age off of the table as an attack against the Democrats but make it very much an issue still for Trump (he is 18 years her senior).  And she'd be able to fully embrace the only mantra that seems to work against the GOP in 2024: that America doesn't like Joe Biden, but they really don't want four more years of Trump.  I think giving them Harris, younger, ready-if-still-not-their-favorite, might be enough of a peace offering to the Biden skeptical for them to get onboard and defeat Trump, by giving them the third option that polls have been begging the major parties for this cycle.  Because, let's face it-if we don't beat Trump in November, the Supreme Court has made sure that we may never get another chance to beat him again.

Reacting to Biden's Debate, Part 2

President and Dr. Biden at an Atlanta Waffle House

It has been four days since the first presidential debate between incumbent President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.  The initial reaction to this debate was, to put it mildly, explosive.  Democrats had assumed that Biden would be able to easily dispatch Trump, but in the aftermath, while Trump clearly didn't "win," it's very obvious that Biden lost.  Through a combination of over-preparedness, a cold that Biden was suffering from, or a true sign that the current president is starting to show his age, Biden appeared lethargic and unable to land many counterpunches against his longtime political rival.  In the wake of that, there were thousands of articles across major news outlets, including an editorial from The New York Times, that called for Biden to step aside.  

The Biden campaign (and it's worth noting, every major elected Democrat in the country) has dismissed such allegations, and indeed, they had a much better few days following it.  Initial polls didn't show much movement for either candidate in the actual election even if a lot of polls showed Trump had won the debate.  This was the lowest-watched debate in recent history (it didn't help the view count much that it's late-June...who wants to watch a presidential debate when you can be at the lake or beach instead?), and it's possible it just didn't sink in (or lay voters saw something different than the chattering pundit class-more on that in a second).  Biden also countered with a really strong speech in North Carolina and a post-debate stop at a Waffle House in Atlanta that went viral, both of which trended pretty heavily on social media over the weekend.  It's possible that this was just a bad day for the campaign, which (despite Democrats' propensity for overreacting) is something that does happen in a presidential debate.  It's worth noting that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all "lost" their first debates before winning their second when they ran for reelection...and then ultimately winning the November election.

I wrote an article in the immediate aftermath of the debate laying out what the damage this debate might do, and to address the idea of whether or not Biden should drop out.  I tried to stay relatively neutral in that article, but I realized as I was writing it and in the day that followed (I had a long weekend for my birthday) that I initially wanted him to drop out.  I love Joe Biden-he's my favorite politician of my lifetime-but I meant (and still mean) what I said in that article.  I'd rather have Kamala Harris win in November even if that meant that my favorite politician had to leave in humiliation-the election should always be about winning, not about ego or favorites.

And I still think there's something to that argument.  Harris has more malleability as a candidate.  She has more room to lose, yes, but if we think that Biden is truly going to lose, then it'd be better to take the riskier bet than the sure loser.  Harris, after all, would put the age question squarely on Donald Trump (who is decades older than her), and would make Trump have to properly sell "the economy is bad" when it's really not, rather than use the age question (which has been far more effective against Biden) against her.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

I also think that the past few days have been a moment where a lot of Biden supporters (myself included) admitted that we're worried about the impact that age has had on the campaign, a sort of taboo that we don't want to say out loud.  I'll be honest-on some level I wish that Biden was retiring this year.  The incumbency was so important, a reason for him to stay on, and Biden's coalition in 2020 was so attractive, but so far this year he has not been able to assemble it, and one wonders if someone like Harris (or Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom) might've been able to pull it off more easily in an open primary.  Getting to say that out loud, and having that honest discussion, felt like a release.

But I will admit my mind changed pretty quickly from "let's replace him" to "this feels like a power grab."  It's okay to admit when you're wrong, and I think some Democrats (because that fear has been real and some have been looking for a way to express it) were over-eager to get on record as saying that Biden's campaign was a bad idea (or a tough sell), and I think in the process things got pretty gross & problematic.

For starters, people with a vested interest in Biden losing seemed way too into the idea of pushing him aside.  The New York Times got rightfully eviscerated for calling for Biden to step aside, despite the Times not doing the same when Donald Trump became a literal convicted felon...they also hadn't called for Senator Mitch McConnell to resign when he had several very public medical issues during press conferences, far more concerning than Biden appearing rudderless in a debate.  The Times has been waging a war against Biden for months now, seemingly over access to his administration, and people correctly pointed out that they did the exact same thing to Hillary Clinton in 2016 even as Trump was (again) more publicly sharing random non sequiturs in debates.  Clinton, nearly eight years later, is as sharp as ever-that was much ado about nothing, and felt like a hit piece.  The same can be said for Nate Silver, who has been so strongly on record about a Biden loss that if he were to win this November his already shaky reputation would be in tatters (even his old website 538 gives Biden much better odds than Silver does).  Him calling for Biden to leave the race felt like a way to cover his butt with the uncertainty of a Harris candidacy.  And finally, the Pod Saves America crowd were quick to jump on the "let's have a conversation train."  I don't talk about it much, but I cannot stand those guys, and I think in general they are really toxic for the Democratic Party.  They take a disproportionate amount of credit for Barack Obama's two presidential victories, and spent much of the 2016 election being over-confident or dismissive of the Clinton campaign (and we saw how that turned out).  As they are doing something similar to Biden, one wonders if they are more vested in the Obama aura than on future Democratic victories.  After all, a second Biden term would prove less that Obama was something they caused themselves, and more that Democratic Party politics is something most of the country responds to (it would also set up a direct, eight-year comparison between the two presidents that it's not clear Obama would come out on top of with the chattering classes, given the successes of Biden's first term).

Pod Save America hosts Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, &
Tommy Vietor

The pundit class also was much more interested in the "re-run the open primary we initially wanted" idea than the sober impact of having to swap out our nominee in July.  Names like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer were thrown out as equally plausible as Kamala Harris, which is simply not true.  Harris is the sitting vice president, and as I pointed out on Friday, would get right-of-first-refusal, something she wouldn't really give up without something more enticing (which, short of a Supreme Court seat, isn't happening).  That people were so casually dismissive of Harris (her chances, but more importantly her ambition & earned right to be the next-in-line as the vice president) felt telling that they had their own agendas (and was, to be frank, a little racist).

But perhaps the most telling thing that got me to be more skeptical that this was the right move was, well, that no tangible evidence pointed in the direction that Biden had suffered a mortal wound to his campaign.  Polls didn't seem to move initially (we'll know more over the next two weeks, and it's possible all of the "replace Biden" press will have a toll in the same way "Hillary's emails" did in 2016 even if the initial debate might not have).  This isn't good (Biden was hoping, and Democrats were expecting, the polls to go up, which they might've with a clear win in the debate), but it's also not a clear emergency when Biden is so close in most polls (even if he is still losing).  Donations were incredibly strong (Democrats had a bit of a rally-around-the-flag moment, and with Q2 closing, at the exact right moment given Trump's strength in fundraising in April & May), and most post-debate interviews with undecided voters seemed to favor Biden, not Trump.

This is where I think the pundit class told on itself, and while I commentate a lot on politics, I'm not afraid to say out loud what I think is happening here.  For the past few years, voters have heard (repeatedly) that Biden is too old to run for reelection.  This has been planted in virtually every voter's mind, and so when the voters saw it on a major stage, this wasn't going to have the impact to the lay voter that it would've if they hadn't been prepared for it.  What they hadn't expected, though, was that Trump's cognitive anger and clear mental decline (leaning into casual, shockingly open racism) was there.  The biggest line of the night that translated into something people actually remembered (rather than just "Biden seemed out of it") were Biden attacking Trump for sleeping with a porn star while his wife was pregnant ("you have the morals of an alley cat") and Trump stating that "immigrants will take Black jobs."  If you're an undecided voter, particularly a Black or Latino undecided voter, this is going to make you question Trump more than Biden.

But it also points out that the media has been lying about their coverage of these two men.  That Biden's age was a surprise to Nate Silver and The New York Times  but not Trump's erraticism (while the undecided voters were like "yeah, I knew that") shows that one of these things has been covered much more to the American public than the other.  And what's more telling is that the media seemed genuinely shocked by Biden but not by Trump...strongly indicating that they didn't actually believe the coverage of his age that they were selling, and to see that it might be right shook them.  It's possible that right-leaning news outlets (and at this point, that includes The New York Times) had done Biden an unexpected favor-they'd lowered expectations enough that your average voter thought he was in line with them, but by not showing Trump unfavorably, they'd made him look worse by comparison.

I do not know where this goes, but what I will say is that the reaction here was ugly, and I will confess that I took a small part in it.  I still think there's some credence to having (non-public, behind-the-scenes) discussion with the Biden/Harris campaign and powerbrokers like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and the DNC leadership over what's best.  If Biden truly isn't up for November (and the cold story was a lie), we'd be better off with Harris.  But at this point I think Biden staying put might make the most sense unless polls start to show a drop (and hint that Harris could win where he couldn't).  What I will say, though, is I'm done having this conversation on this blog until something new (tangible announcements from actual powerbrokers or a consistent trend in polling) have something new to say.  Having this dialogue every single day is not healthy for whomever ends up the nominee (or my mental health), and I'm not contributing to that.  We'll continue to cover politics on the blog, but this is my last word on if Biden should step aside until we have something new to print.

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.

Donald Trump is a Convicted Felon

I was going to write an article about my trip tonight, but that will have to wait for tomorrow as twelve men and women in New York City did something that has never been done before-they convicted a former president of the United States of a felony.  34 felonies, if we're being specific.  Yes, after years of media speculation, campaign attacks, & endless legal discussions, the jury in the Manhattan case against Donald Trump, which accused him of illegally falsifying business records to cover up an extramarital affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, delivered a guilty verdict on all counts.  Donald Trump, former President of the United States, is now a convicted felon.

So we're going to do one of our "five thoughts" articles about this, though we're not calling it that because I like the provocative title here and don't want to impede it with more words.  Let's dive in on what this could/will mean.

Former President and Convicted Felon
Donald Trump (R-FL)

1. Donald Trump is a Felon (and That's Bad for Donald Trump in Every Way)

There is inevitably going to be some moronic talking head on a cable news channel who will offer a contrarian viewpoint on this, so I want to start off with: this is really, really, really bad for Donald Trump.  Easily one of the worst days of his political career, and this is a man who lost a presidential election and was impeached (twice).

A lot of the conversation headed into this has been "it won't matter-his supporters will support him no matter what" which has always been both true and stupid (sometimes those adjectives overlap).  MAGA hardcore supporters, yes, are going to double down now.  Trump has become a cause, and they are increasingly in a situation where Trump winning in November is the only way he stays out of jail (more on that in a second).  But MAGA was never how he was going to win-if they were enough, he'd still be president.  Instead, it was the small-but-mighty coalition of voters that got Joe Biden a victory where Hillary Clinton failed: moderate Republicans (think people like Jeff Flake & Cindy McCain), 2016 third party voters who didn't want to make the same mistake twice, and disinterested voters who turned out in 2020 while they skipped 2016 (also, all of the Hillary voters-let's not forget the true fighters who never fell for the cause in the first place).  That is where victory lies, and polling has shown that that coalition wasn't strong for Biden in 2024.  This might not change that, but it does make it harder for those voters to get out for Trump...and without those voters, his race against Biden becomes harder, potentially unwinnable.

The reality is that we don't know what it's like for a convicted felon to run as a major party presidential candidate, because it's never happened before.  Anyone claiming this doesn't matter spends too much watching cable news, or is too eager to understand the ending to a story that doesn't have an ending yet.  Whether this will impact the November election in a meaningful way we'll see in public polling and in donations in the coming months (note I said months-in the next 48 hours, I would imagine the Trump campaign team makes a fortune in donations...all of which will go to his legal bills, but still will provide a rare positive talking point for his campaign to trumpet).  But what I will say, unequivocally, is this doesn't help Donald Trump, and almost certainly hurts his presidential campaign.  And also, well, his life.  He's a 78-year-old man who faces the very real prospect of going to jail in a few weeks-that's gotta be terrifying for a guy who has never had to face serious consequences despite a lifetime of debauchery and mistakes.

Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD)

2. Republicans Are the Real Loser Here

Republicans are also going to struggle to run on this.  Perhaps the quirkiest thing about polling right now is that Trump has consistently outrun Republicans down-ballot due to public antipathy to President Biden but not to the Democratic Party as a whole.  It's hard to see how this helps that (if anything, it risks Trump losing ground rather than down-ballot gaining), but it also means that Republicans no longer get to deal with a hypothetical.  They have to run with a convicted felon as their nominee, and risk alienating either swing voters (which those in blue/purple districts need to win) or their base (which, again, they need to win).

The reactions so far are expected.  Republicans like House Speaker Mike Johnson & Senator Marco Rubio actively disparaged the decision, calling it a "shameful day in American history" and blamed Democrats.  It's worth noting this a damned lie-neither Joe Biden nor Alvin Bragg nor Leititia James convicted Donald Trump-a jury of 12 anonymous citizens did, like the Constitution instructed, so if anything this is pretty much exactly what the legal system intended to happen.  But this appears to be the tactic-blaming Biden for something he didn't have anything to do with, and hope that people buy it.  The problem is, outside of his base, I don't think they will.  It's pretty clear that Trump was guilty, and with a conviction, it's going to be hard to move a majority of Americans away from thinking Trump is a felon before November.

Two specific takes I want to talk about here, because one is a sign of how this is going to be a struggle for Republicans who go away from the "miscarriage of justice" line (and one because it's funny).  The first is from former Governor Larry Hogan, the current Republican nominee for the open Senate seat in Maryland.  Hogan has openly rejected Trump's candidacy, and said "Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process."  This is pretty innocuous (and indistinguishable from some Democratic lawmakers' statements), but the reactions to this was overwhelmingly negative from Republicans on social media, who called Hogan a traitor.  Twitter is not indicative of real life (thank goodness), but this does an underline a problem for Republicans like Hogan, who needs to win a bunch of blue voters to win...but also needs universal MAGA support.  Donald Trump doesn't care if Larry Hogan wins, all he demands is loyalty, and his conviction puts Hogan in an impossible situation that will significantly decrease his chances of pulling off a victory in his Senate race.  That underscores the problem here-Trump is hurting some of his party's top prospects for Congress, and the longer this drags out, the more candidates like Hogan there will be who feel the brunt of it.

The other statement I want to point out is a comment from Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY), who represents a swing district on Long Island.  LaLota's solution was for New York Governor Kathy Hochul to pardon Trump, which is both hilarious because Hochul hates Trump (and the feeling is mutual), and also because the congressman's only real answer of what to do with Trump is to somehow beg the Democrats for a "do-over."  Mitt Romney also floated this as an idea for Biden to do for Trump, and I just...it's so milquetoast you have to laugh to keep from crying.

President Joe Biden (D-DE)

3. Joe Biden Has to Run on This...And I Suspect He Will

All right, that was fun, but let's get professional again, and turn to what will now happen for Joe Biden.  One of the biggest questions here has been how President Biden will react to the news, and how much (if at all) he will campaign upon it.  To date, Biden and his team have been reluctant to talk about the multiple trials that Trump is facing.  This felt natural-two of those trials were being pursued by his own Justice Department, and given the historic nature of your political opponent being on trial with your administration (even validly) being who is prosecuting you...it was a bad look to attack Trump.

But Biden's polling numbers have been terrible-if the presidential election were held today, he'd lose-and he can't afford to ignore this any longer.  Biden's Communications Director Michael Tyler said after the verdict "There is still only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: at the ballot box.  Convicted felon or not, Trump will be the Republican nominee for president."  It's hard to see Biden not using this in his campaign speeches going forward-calling Trump a convicted felon (which he now is) is going to be hard to resist, and is going to be important.  Public polling has shown that Biden would gain some support if Trump was convicted (and more if he was incarcerated), and Biden needs to grow his support base.  It's the equivalent of someone throwing you a case of Evian when you're walking through the desert-you can't turn it down.  It's the smart decision to start using this as part of his campaign approach (and not just through surrogates-Biden needs to bring it up too, as "convicted felon" needs to be the attack line in the way that "her emails" was against Hillary because it's a winning message), and one he'll need to take on.

Whether it will change minds-again, it's too soon to tell.  But Americans do not generally elect criminals in tossup elections (outside of Louisiana).

Judge Juan Marchan

4. What Happens to Trump Next?

There are a few key questions in Trump's future.  The first is around sentencing.  The media speculation has been that Trump is unlikely to face jail-time for this conviction.  He's a first-time felon, he's 78, and well, he's the Republican nominee for president.  It's possible that Judge Juan Merchan will be harsher on Trump than he normally would with a first-time convict.  Trump regularly broke court gag orders, attacking witnesses and the judge's own family.  Merchan has leeway to put Trump in jail for up to four years if he so chose, though even then it's possible that Trump would be able to appeal and stay out of jail in the meantime.  In a normal situation, the defendant would hide from public view and  seek penance, trying to stay in the judge's good graces, and a normal defendant would not go to jail.  This is Donald Trump, though, so it's almost certain he'll publicly attack the judge again, potentially even attacking members of the jury or try to publicly out them.  One wonders how Merchan would react in such a scenario, which is why I think that it's a bit premature to assume Merchan's ultimate actions.  If Trump is publicly attacking innocent civilians (which is what the jury members are), I think Merchan would take a harsher stance, and I do not put it past Trump & his surrogates to do so.

Regardless, the next six weeks will largely be focused in the media over Trump going to jail or not.  That's bad, not just for his campaign, where he's been out of commission while Biden has been setting up GOTV infrastructure in swing states and been campaigning nonstop, but also because Trump has two major dates approaching: the first presidential debate on June 27th and the kickoff to the Republican National Convention on July 15th.  There is now a certainty at the debate that Biden will be able to attack Trump as "more worried about if he's headed to jail than he is about the American people" and the RNC faces the distinct possibility they will not have their nominee...because he'll be in a cell at Rikers rather than the Milwaukee stage.  Additionally, Trump being distracted is going to be the story for much of the early summer.  And when Trump is the story, he tends to lose support.

It also makes Trump's other cases more interesting, both legally and in the court of public opinion.  The Supreme Court has still not issued a decree about presidential immunity.  Given the actions of Justices Alito & Thomas (and their spouses) in recent days, it's hard to imagine this makes consensus easier for Chief Justice John Roberts, unless he is hoping to provide Trump cover in the crimes he allegedly committed while in office that he's currently under indictment for in Georgia and DC.  It's worth noting that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes likely is sitting on an indictment of Trump for his involvement in the Arizona fake electors case, probably waiting on the Supreme Court case (MSNBC's legal analyst Lisa Rubin has speculated this publicly).  If the Supreme Court allows the other trial to proceed, Trump may face an additional indictment in a fifth jurisdiction by year's end, and possibly a sixth one in Michigan (though Arizona is more likely than Michigan) over their fake electors case.

If the Supreme Court cases's politics got murkier, Trump's attacks on these investigations also did too.  Trump is already a convicted felon-he loses credibility in his attacks on the other cases now.  He "had his day in court" and he lost.  Combined with his civil cases that he lost to the State of New York and E. Jean Carroll (worth $438 million in settlements) and an additional IRS audit that could cost Trump another $100 million in Illinois, Trump's consistently been proven to be guilty within the legal system.  For persuadable or average Americans, this is a bad look: it's no longer innocent-until-proven-guilty...it's just guilty.  The Trump campaign will have to find a way to get voters to not care that he's a felon, which he can do, but is harder to do without a literal conviction.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

5. The Vice Presidential Math Just Got More Interesting

One of the ways they could do that is through Trump's VP pick.  Given the risk that Trump will not be able to attend the RNC, it is certain that Trump will announce his VP choice before July 11th, and therefore before knowing whether or not he will have to run as an incarcerated nominee.  Given that, I think he will lean in on his attacks on the legal system by picking an attorney as his running-mate.  No one is better prepared to attack the courtroom process, after all, than someone who has been in the legal profession, and Trump would love to use that sort of "even a lawyer says I shouldn't be in jail" angle to help prod his base for donations & support.

Of the most bandied names for the Trump VP slot, three are attorneys, all Republican senators: Marco Rubio (FL), JD Vance (OH), & Tom Cotton (AR).  None of these three are former prosecutors (betting Trump wishes he was nicer to Chris Christie now), but they are all former attorneys.  Of the three, Cotton is the most obvious choice for Trump if he wants to use someone to spin for him.  A former Army Captain with an Ivy League education, Cotton has a lot of the "central casting" attributes that Trump really likes, and unlike Vance & Rubio, he does not have a string of public statements to get past criticizing Trump during his 2016 campaign (also, I struggle to see Rubio actually getting picked, mostly because Trump seems to revel in humiliating him, and this would be one last chance to do so).  If Trump is unable to attend the RNC due to him being in jail, it is probably that the VP nominee will get to deliver the convention acceptance speech on Trump's behalf-Cotton is the best emulation of Trump to get MAGA supporters energized.  Cotton would be a terrible choice given his positions on abortion, stem-cell research, & women's rights, but in terms of Trump's court case...he might honestly be Trump's defense strategy's best ambassador.  We'll get into this as it unfolds (i.e. I've written enough today and will save some for later as this is an ongoing subject), but that last sentence is intentionally provocative: even more so than before the verdict, we are going to see a stark juxtaposition between what is good for Donald Trump's legal strategy and what is good for his party's political strategy in the coming months.