A review of the reactions to Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance sets up the scale of the current Democratic conundrum.
Democratic insiders told CNN’s John King that “it was over” and they were exploring ways of removing Joe from the ticket. MSNBC’s Van Jones, who said he “loves Joe Biden,” could barely hold back tears of despair. Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes coped by insisting that “communication and campaigning” are separate skills from “governing.” Nate Silver likewise suggested the party should dump Biden.
But however real the panic among Democratic elites, the screams to replace Joe show that they are even more out of touch with reality than indicated by their initial support for Biden to run again in the first place.
It is theoretically possible to remove Biden from the ticket in a legal sense, albeit only with his consent. Democratic Party rules require all delegates to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged on the first ballot, and Biden currently has more than enough pledged to him to secure the nomination automatically on the first ballot even if he were comatose. Any scenario in which Joe Biden is not the Democratic nominee would require Joe Biden to decline the nomination after receiving it.
In that case, the floor would be opened – in theory at least. Delegates would be free to vote for whomever they wish, and candidates to woo them.
The reality, however is quite a bit different. It was always going to be hard to bypass Kamala Harris’s claims. One reason it was so difficult for Joe Biden to contemplate replacing her was that it was hard to justify dropping her from the ticket without calling into question the judgment of Biden and the Democratic Party for leaving her one octogenarian heartbeat away from the presidency.
After what occurred last week, any effort to drop Joe Biden from the ticket would make denying Harris the nomination incomparably more difficult to justify, and vastly more damaging politically if by some chance it was successful. Why? Because if Joe Biden is stepping down for reasons of incapacity, it creates a crisis not just of politics but of governance.
Joe Biden is not merely a candidate for president. He is, for good or ill, the sitting president of the United States. If he is unable to conduct a campaign for president, mentally or physically, serious questions will be raised over how he can carry out the duties of his current office. By the act of replacing Joe Biden as a candidate for reasons of capacity, the Democratic Party will be conceding not only that they have saddled the United States with a man incapable of exercising the office in a time of crisis, but that they intend to leave him there for the remaining seven months of his term.
Before last Thursday night, it might have been possible – just – to credibly sell a Biden withdrawal as the result of a desire to spend more time with his family while focusing on the international crisis. Such an argument is laughable now. Biden wanted to serve another four years. There is no way he would have subjected himself to what occurred Thursday night otherwise. In this desire, the Democratic Party and primary electorate indulged him. If he withdraws now, there can be no doubt as to why.
That brings us to the role of Kamala Harris. The logic of a Biden withdrawal following Thursday’s debate almost argues in favor of a resignation from the presidency as well. At the very least, it places a premium on the person who may be called upon to carry out the duties of president if Joe Biden cannot exercise them.
For the Democratic Party to suggest Kamala Harris is not fit to be their nominee for president is to concede she is not fit to exercise the duties of president. That in turn means that not only has the Democratic Party installed a man who is now unable to carry out his duties, which the party only conceded when he was caught, but it also installed in the vice presidency a woman who could not carry them out either.
In short, the Democratic Party will be opening itself to the charge that they have filled the White House with two individuals incapable of leading the country.
This is compounded by the chance that Kamala Harris may well have to step up to fill in the duties of president before the election. In that event, it would create a crisis of legitimacy for a new Democratic nominee, who would somehow have to justify why Harris is somehow fit to be president now but wasn’t for the next four years.
Without a doubt, the correct political decision for the Democratic Party would have been for Joe Biden to opt against running for reelection last year. The correct decision also would likely have been not to nominate Kamala Harris for vice president. Having prioritized short-term expediency over both the nation and the party’s long-term interests, Democrats find themselves trapped.
Democrats could choose to persevere in forcing Biden out and repudiating Harris. They may well reason that the risks justify the rewards, and that neither Biden nor Harris can win an election, while California Governor Gavin Newsom or Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer just might, even with the damage inflicted in the process of switching candidates.
If they believe this, Democrats should pay close attention to what has happened in the United Kingdom. The British Conservative Party has had three Prime Ministers since the 2019 election, removing both Boris Johnson and, perhaps most infamously, Liz Truss after less than two months in office.
The party attempted to take credit for replacing Truss, whom they admitted had “crashed” the economy, with Rishi Sunak, a suave, professional banker. Rather than earning gratitude for having saved the country from Truss, however, the Tories find themselves blamed, correctly, for having foisted her upon the nation in the first place. After all, the Conservative Party made her Prime Minister, and if even they admit she crashed the economy, then the party is by its own admission the type of reckless entity willing to gamble with the nation’s future.
By replacing Joe Biden because he is unfit to be president, the Democrats would be admitting before the entire world that they installed an unfit man in the White House and kept him there, lying about his condition until their deception was exposed.
By bypassing Harris, meanwhile, they would be admitting they put a woman who they now believe to be unfit for the presidency a heartbeat away, serving under a man whose condition they knowingly covered up.
By going before the country expecting gratitude for having admitted the truth after it was exposed for all to see, with both individuals still in the White House, Democrats will be declaring that they see the electorate for fools. Even the most desperate and delusional strategists must comprehend where that will end in November.
Walter Samuel is the pseudonym of a prolific international affairs writer and academic. He has worked in Washington as well as in London and Asia, and holds a Doctorate in International History.
