As far as I can tell, almost nobody in Democratic politics right now thinks that, in an ideal world, President Joe Biden would remain our nominee to take on former President Donald Trump, who was already an existential threat to democracy before the Supreme Court gave him free rein to assassinate rivals and launch political coups.
But many of the donors, operatives, and party activists I've spoken with over the last few days feel nervous about our alternatives. On Thursday night it seemed clear to them that Biden needed to do the right thing and step aside. But since then, influenced by the flood of psyops claiming Biden is the "only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump" and framing any questions about Biden's candidacy as "bedwetting," many have started to wonder whether our other options are any better.
So, let's be clear: They are better. Whether Biden passes the torch to Vice President Kamala Harris or allows his delegates to select a new nominee, we have alternatives that give us a much stronger chance of beating Trump than Biden currently has. Here's why, starting with Harris.
First, Harris does not have Biden's biggest problem, which is that vast majorities of Americans don't believe he has the mental acuity necessary for a second term. A recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that fully 72 percent of voters don't think he has the "cognitive health to serve as president." This is a stunning crisis of faith that Harris, who is already polling better than Biden in head-to-head matchups against Trump, can simply sidestep.
Donald Trump represents an existential threat to freedom in the United States and abroad. We cannot stick with someone who is demonstrably one of our worst possible options to beat him in November.
Second, we were already losing before the debate. Biden has been consistently polling behind Trump this entire campaign cycle, and Nate Silver was giving Trump a two-thirds probability of winning prior to Thursday. To make up that kind of ground, a campaign needs to aggressively deliver its message across every possible medium—podcasts, daytime and late-night talk shows, videos with popular YouTubers, everywhere. That's not possible for Biden, whose team has been keeping him from doing live, unscripted interviews for years. Harris may not be a perfect communicator, but she can unquestionably prosecute the case for her candidacy across a wide range of forums in a way Biden can't. That's a huge advantage.
Third, the painful truth is that the meltdown we all witnessed on Thursday was almost certainly not a one-off event. Biden's communicative challenges will continue—that's how age works. With him at the top of the ticket, the entire Democratic Party will be forced to deal with a steady stream of slip ups and, potentially, major disasters that could even eclipse the debate. Each of these will not only push the presidency farther out of reach, but also drag down every other down-ballot Democrat, many of whom are already starting to distance themselves from Biden and calling on him to step aside. To say that Harris represents more of a gamble than that is, frankly, insulting to her.
Fourth, Biden's poor polling has persisted despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the campaign and its affiliated groups have already invested to prop him up. Harris, by contrast, has spent four years with almost no infrastructure focused on making her look good. It's very likely that Harris' standing will improve following an advertising blitz highlighting her positive qualities. Biden doesn't have this upside.
Fifth, a new Democratic ticket wouldn't just have Harris on it. We're talking about Harris/Whitmer, Harris/Shapiro, Harris/Pritzker, etc. Even if you believe that Harris is a weak candidate, that means right now our ticket has two weak candidates. I'd take a team with just one weak link over the current ticket any day.
Sixth, I don't think we should accept the argument that Harris is necessarily weak. She's not a once-in-a-generation talent, but her performances have been getting stronger, and she is particularly compelling when speaking about abortion, which is the most important issue for a Democratic nominee in 2024 to be able to discuss (without, you know, pivoting to the topic of immigrant murders). Her candidacy would also be historic for women and people of color. With the proper message and resources, that history-making quality could motivate voters that Democrats need to turn out in November.
I've never been a huge Kamala Harris fan myself. I'm a Bernie guy who's been on the receiving end of her fans' vitriol many times in the past. So, the fact that I'm advocating for her is actually a useful data point that she can and would unite the party. Whatever your concerns about Harris might be, the vice president is a reasonably competent communicator who can deliver energetic speeches, engage in interviews and live conversations, and actively make the case for her candidacy. Just based on that, she's a significant improvement over Biden.
Of course, handing the nomination to Harris isn't the only option. Biden could also release his delegates to the Democratic National Convention and allow the party to choose one of its highly talented up-and-comers as its new standard-bearer. Though an open convention carries risk, the upsides are immense. Just think about it: The DNC would transform from another lame political event into a reality show extravaganza. And if there's one thing Americans love, it's reality show extravaganzas!
Party leaders fear the potential divisiveness of an open convention. But fear and hatred of Trump are the core of the Democratic id—that's the whole reason we're freaking out right now. None of us need our top choice on the ticket. Maybe some Democratic elites will be sore if their candidate doesn't clinch the nomination. But, right now, every other Democrat just cares about beating Trump. It will take approximately five minutes for the party to get in lockstep behind any competent ticket.
It's also been argued that an open convention wouldn't give Democrats enough time to introduce their new ticket to voters. But we'd still have a longer period of time than most countries' entire elections. A majority of voters don't like Trump—they don't need months and months to recognize a better option.
Perhaps the most important argument for an open convention is that it would be new.Poll after poll shows Americans hate our current matchup; it's the most consistent piece of data we have. An open convention would be a powerful demonstration to voters that Democrats—unlike Republicans—actually hear their concerns and are delivering what the people want. It's an awesome statement of responsiveness, one that voters could reward in a big way.
Biden's team has been circling the wagons around their candidate. That's not surprising—they face a loss of money and prestige if Biden were to do the right thing and step aside. But their narrow interests shouldn't be allowed to drag down the future of American democracy. Biden has achieved great things as president. But Donald Trump represents an existential threat to freedom in the United States and abroad. We cannot stick with someone who is demonstrably one of our worst possible options to beat him in November. Whether we pass the nomination to Harris or choose from a wider Democratic talent pool, we have much stronger options to take on Trump. It would be madness—utter, suicidal madness—not to take them.
