Six weeks ago, when I considered whether Democrats would be better off nominating someone other than Biden, my conclusion was complicated:
- With medium confidence, I think the risks of a serious primary challenge to Biden at this point in time would outweigh the benefits for Democrats.
- With low confidence, I think the risks of Biden volunteering not to runfor a second would also outweigh the benefits for Democrats, but this is closer.
- With low confidence, and taking full advantage of hindsight bias, I think Democrats probably would have been better off if Biden had announced 6-12 months ago that he wouldn’t seek a second term.
I don’t know that my views on this question should change all that much on the basis of six more weeks of poor polling for Biden — plus, now it’s even later for someone else (especially someone other than Harris) to run in his place. What I would say, though, is that my head and gut have begun to diverge. Responsible Psephologist Nate says that it’s at least six months too late to have this conversation — that the most likely outcome of a serious primary challenge to Biden would be Biden winning the nomination anyway but being even worse for wear, or perhaps stepping down and endorsing Harris. You can’t call down to the bullpen and retrieve Gretchen Whitmer ready to throw 99-mph heat against Trump without voters asking what the hell happened to Harris or whether Whitmer is even in game shape.
But my gut — which I must reiterate, you should not trust — is with my friend in Miami. It’s saying this: Voters are telling us in every possible way that they’d really like someone other than these two guys to be on the ballot next year. And since this is a democracy, maybe somebody should listen?….