If not Biden, who?

Perry Bacon Jr.: The delegates at the Democratic National Convention showing up, hearing nationally televised speeches from 10 candidates or so and eventually choosing Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan as the Democratic nominee and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) as her running mate seems an ideal outcome. I am not sure how plausible that is, though.

This problem was not unanticipated. Here’s a piece I wrote in January 2022 (not a typo) suggesting that Biden’s age was an issue and calling for an open Democratic primary. Here’s another call for a primary in February 2023. I was far from the only person making this argument.

There were two clear advantages to having an extended primary, starting early last year. First, and most important, Democratic Party voters would have gotten to choose their candidate. Second, the best way to see if a person is good at running for president … is seeing them run for president.

Now, we all have our guesses about who would be a strong candidate. We can look at polling. But there is no way to watch Whitmer compete for months against other candidates and see how she fares.

There have only been two polls of Whitmer vs. Trump in Michigan this year. Not a large body of evidence. But in both surveys, Whitmer led over Donald Trump while Biden trailed him. Her strong wins in 2018 and 2022 suggest she really bolsters Democrats’ chances in one of the three states (the others are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) that the party needs to get to 270 electoral votes. She has a policy record that could appeal to progressives and moderates.

Why pair Whitmer with Booker? He, like Kamala D. Harris, tried to run in between the left (Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and the center-left candidates (Biden) during his 2020 presidential run. That strategy didn’t work in such a crowded field. But a candidate who is not a clear leftie or moderate could be a unifying figure. Booker remains very well-liked in the party. Diversity matters, so it’s important to have a non-White candidate. Booker (who is 55) combined with Whitmer (52) are a ticket that could address some of Biden-Harris’s current shortfalls among younger and Black voters as well as appealing to the majority of voters who don’t want a president in his 80s.

David Von Drehle: The truth is, the party has dozens of possible presidents, starting with its governors and former governors. But there is one they could sincerely present to the American public as the best-prepared and most talented public servant of her generation: Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. A very serious person, Raimondo is not a good match for the silliness of a years-long campaign. But she is perfect for the compressed window of time her party faces, because the first 30 things Americans would learn about her will all appeal massively to the despairing center of the electorate that will decide this election.

Imagine the impact of a hard pivot from the geriatric dyspepsia of Biden vs. Trump to a new face whose whole career says problems can be solved and challenges can be met. Raimondo, a Rhodes Scholar, gave up her path to massive wealth to rescue her home state of Rhode Island from bankruptcy due to unfunded pension promises. She accomplished this in her rookie year as state treasurer by touring hundreds of open meetings, patiently explaining the nature of the problem while enduring wails of anguish and abuse from current and retired public employees who had trusted the phony promises of her reckless predecessors.

Guess what: Voters could handle the truth. In fact they liked it and made Raimondo governor. During two successful terms, she cut taxes yearly, raised the minimum wage, delivered tuition-free community college, streamlined government regulations, guaranteed sick-leave benefits, attracted new businesses, expanded renewable energy sources and excelled in managing the covid-19 crisis.

The next president should understand the A.I. revolution, right? Raimondo is arguably the most knowledgeable public official on the topic. The next president needs expertise in managing the competition with China, no? Raimondo has skillfully managed the more than $700 billion trading relationship at the heart of hopes for global peace and stability. As the daughter of a dad who lost his job to China when Raimondo was in school, she has eyes wide open.

Democrats have an opportunity to demonstrate that they hear the voices of America’s unhappy middle, that they believe in the nation’s future, and that they can finally elect America’s first female president.

David Ignatius: I agree with Perry Bacon’s nomination of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and David Von Drehle’s boost for Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. Both are centrist Democrats; both would crush Donald Trump in a debate, and both have the toughness and brains to be president. Of the two, I’d lean toward Raimondo because she has the ambition and daring to reach for big, transformative goals. She did that as governor of Rhode Island and now as commerce secretary.

I’d add Maryland Gov. Wes Moore to the list. Think about his résumé: He started at a community college, went on to make Phi Beta Kappa at Johns Hopkins, won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, served as an Army Captain in combat with the fabled 82nd Airborne division in Afghanistan, headed a big charitable foundation, made money on Wall Street and is now off to a great start as governor. He would eat Trump alive on the debate stage.

How to get the ball rolling? One possibility would be for a few delegates from, say, Michigan, Rhode Island and Maryland to announce that they cannot in good conscience vote for Biden, to whom they’re officially pledged. (Yes, there’s a “good conscience” escape hatch written into the Democratic convention rules, as I read them.) These delegates would instead say they planned to vote for a favorite daughter (Whitmer or Raimondo) or son (Moore). Voting for a state favorite used to be a regular opening bid in national conventions. The prospective nominees could disavow any role in the process, of course. And then, the race would be on!

Dana Milbank: I haven’t been as declarative as some others on this chain, so I’ll just go out and say it: Yes, I think Donald Trump should step down as his party’s presidential nominee. He is manifestly unfit to serve, both dangerously incompetent and clearly out of his mind.

My thoughts about Biden are more complicated. I've long wished that the Democrats had a different nominee, and I feel that way now more than ever. It's hard to see how he wins. If he and his family and advisers decided that withdrawing as the nominee would be his highest service to the country, I would applaud that decision.

But demanding he withdraw is another matter. For all the abuse he has received, he has been highly successful as president, particularly given the dysfunctional politics of the moment. Democratic voters chose Biden knowing that he had lost a step; the extent of his decline was shocking in last week's debate, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

Also, there isn’t some Goldilocks alternative to Biden. Would Vice President Harris be a stronger nominee? That’s not at all clear. The other names typically floated — California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Whitmer — may only seem more appealing because they have not (yet) been the main focus of the MAGA disinformation machine. A free-for-all at the Democratic convention could work out well, or it could destroy the party. The question is whether a Biden defeat seems to be so certain (and, with it, heavy losses in the House and Senate) that Democrats have nothing to lose.

Perry Bacon Jr.: I’m very conflicted about the question of whether Biden should step aside. None of the potential replacements have been vetted by their opponents and the media as would happen in a presidential primary. State government coverage is very thin these days. The investigative teams of The Post, the New York Times, ProPublica and other outlets might find really damaging information about Whitmer or one of these other governors being floated as candidates.

We don’t know how a very unusual replacement/convention process would affect voters’ perception of whoever ends up being the candidate. Also, I am really wary of the 4,672 Democratic delegates picking the nominee, instead of voters. Perhaps the best way forward is for the Democrats to keep Biden on the ticket but lean into the idea that this is not an election about Trump vs. Biden as individuals but the Republican vision for the country vs. the Democratic one.

David Von Drehle: Vice President Harris should, by all means, toss her hat into the ring if President Biden chooses not to run. If she can make a better case than she made as a candidate for president four years ago, she will have a real shot.

However, Democrats should not assume that because she was Biden’s chosen running mate, she somehow deserves to have the nomination handed to her.

The unspoken entitlement of vice presidents to inherit a nomination of their own is a purely modern invention, and it doesn’t have a good track record — just ask Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale or Al Gore. In the 70 years before 1960, the Democratic Party rarely nominated a former Veep. Adlai Stevenson of Ohio (father of the Eisenhower-era nominee), Thomas Marshall of Indiana, John Nance Garner of Texas, Henry Wallace of Iowa and Alben Barkley of Kentucky all served as Democratic vice presidents without subsequently receiving the party’s nomination to head a ticket.

The party should get back to that healthy separation between serving as a running mate and winning an open fight for top billing. The alternative is anti-democratic. Giving vice presidents a leg up in nomination contests ties the choices available to future voters to unilateral decisions made by past nominees. Vice presidents should not be at a disadvantage; but they shouldn’t be advantaged, either.

Perry Bacon Jr.: There has been some speculation that Black voters would be very disappointed if Biden were replaced by a candidate other Harris. The argument is that choosing Whitmer or any other candidate risks depressing the Black vote, which would be very bad for Democrats. I am not so sure of that. Harris’s approval numbers among Black voters are fairly similar to Biden’s. Neither of them is beloved. Citing those numbers is a bit unfair to Harris, since vice presidents don’t get to define themselves.

I am not promising that there would be no backlash among some Black activists or voters if Harris were removed from the ticket along with Biden. But this issue is complicated and nuanced. It’s possible Harris isn’t that much more popular than Biden among Black voters — or that other candidates can match or exceed her on that front.

I think Harris could be a strong candidate. 2020 was a long time ago. She seems much more confident in speaking about her positions now. I think she could have won an open primary that started early last year. Harris with a running mate of Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear would be a youthful, energetic ticket ready to lean into what is the Democrats’ best argument: fighting Republican radicalism on abortion, book bans and other issues.

I consider Whitmer a stronger candidate than Harris largely because Whitmer is particularly useful in a key state. Democrats will win Harris’s native California with or without her on the ticket.

Also, Harris is the candidate least able to present a clean break from Biden. The president is very unpopular. Ideally, a new candidate could distance themselves from high inflation, the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan, the lack of candor about the president’s aging. Harris actually isn’t very influential in the administration. But she has been suggesting for four years that she is one of Biden’s closest advisers.

David Ignatius: The political dilemma surrounding Vice President Harris illustrates some of President Biden’s biggest weaknesses.

Harris was a poor choice to begin with. She hadn't been a strong candidate in the 2020 primaries, and she didn't have a broad political base. Two days before Biden announced that she was his choice back in 2020, he was considering Gretchen Whitmer. Why he embraced Harris is a mystery.

Once Harris was elected, Biden needed to help her get traction. But the Biden White House is a prickly, insular family — and they basically let her sink or swim. They gave her the thankless task of overseeing border issues and Central America; when she went to the region and expressed the administration’s policy — telling migrants to stay in their countries — she took flak from progressives and the White House left her hanging. That created a breach that was never fixed. ​

Having concluded that Harris wasn’t winning public trust (and was running behind Biden in the polls) the president and his White House team should have had the political courage to fix the problem — by easing her out, if necessary. FDR’s decision to jettison Henry Wallace in 1944 in favor of Harry S. Truman was one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency.

But Biden is bad at saying no. With Harris, he acted like he was walking on eggshells. To this day, he and his advisers fear the political fallout from abandoning a running mate they know is unpopular.

Donald Trump mostly spewed lies about Biden last Thursday. But one accurate criticism was that Biden never fires anyone. He rarely holds people accountable for bad performance, even when it’s in his political interest to do so.

Harris is a case in point. He may have deserved better from her, but she deserved better from him. ​

Matt Bai: Harris would have a lot of built-in advantages if Biden were to step aside. If she can’t capitalize on those advantages in an open process, then she probably shouldn’t be the nominee.

Let me just say a word about Gavin Newsom. Whether or not you think he’s too slick, and some people do, Newsom has shown real political boldness over the past year. He’s had the guts to go out there and offer himself up as a fallback option, and he runs a huge and diverse state. If Biden were to stand down now, I think Newsom has earned the right to be considered, and I think he’d be a relatively safe choice. I actually think the party has a bunch of talented candidates-in-waiting who could beat Trump — Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. (Yes, I think Pete would beat Trump.)

Perry Bacon Jr.: Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.) is a very skilled politician and would be a great candidate but is running for reelection this year. I really want him to hold that seat. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania just won in 2022. Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin has won two terms in a really hard state. But if you watch him speak, he lacks the charisma of Whitmer. He is also 72, not ideal if the goal is to project youth.

Sen. Raphael G. Warnock (Ga.) might be the best politician in the Democratic Party right now. He has won a really hard state twice, in federal elections. (Voters often back candidates from the opposite party in gubernatorial races. So that’s why I’m less bullish on my own governor, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear.) But Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia would choose Warnock’s replacement, taking the Democrats down a seat in the Senate.

Dana Milbank: There are 213 Democratic members of the House, 23 governors and 51 senators. Except for a few who are constitutionally ineligible by age or birth, almost all would be preferable to Trump. And many could beat Trump. To the fine list my colleagues have amassed, I’d add Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Heck, I’d even be happy with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III if he were still a Democrat.

But I fear that this sort of parlor game leaves the impression that it would be easy to replace Biden on the ticket, and that’s just not true. I think this is what drives the hesitancy among Democrats to demand that Biden be replaced, not the lack of a desire for him to be replaced. There have been many references to Democratic leaders and leading Democrats and Democrats as a collective whole: why “they” nominated Biden and don’t want to replace him. This is all fair comment, and I share some of the frustration. But I think this framing radically overstates the power of the party and its leaders, assigning to them the ability to remove Biden and to organize a rational process to produce an alternative. I think Will Rogers’s nearly century-old admonition still prevails: “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” But now, thanks largely to changes in campaign finance, the Democratic Party, and parties in general, are historically weak. There are no party bosses, no Politburo or deep state that can decide how things will be done.

Matt Bai: Parties are barely relevant in modern politics, as Trump has painfully demonstrated. Personalities rule. I think there might be worse things than letting the country get a close-up look at some of the Democrats’ most compelling personalities who aren’t in their 80s. I’m not saying Biden can’t win — he can. I’m saying that this campaign will inevitably now be about his age and fitness, more than about his opponent’s lack of morality or patriotism. And that’s a scenario he can still prevent.

Dana Milbank: If Biden does step aside — again, this can only happen voluntarily — is there a universe in which he doesn’t pass the baton to his vice president, who would carry on the Biden agenda and legacy? If the nominee isn’t Harris, it’s not at all clear what would happen to the massive war chest and campaign apparatus Biden has amassed. Contributions would have to be returned or sent off to state parties. Reservations for ad buys might have to be surrendered. Ballot access would potentially become a problem. This doesn’t mean leading Democrats are stacking the deck for Harris or trying to create a closed process. It’s just that the structural obstacles to choosing somebody else are formidable.

Anyway, I disagree with my colleagues on tactics more than substance. I would be happy if Biden decided that it is in the country’s interest for him to let somebody else carry the torch. While we shouldn’t be naive about how difficult and perilous a switch would be, I think it may well be worth the risk, particularly if polls show substantial changes post-debate. But this decision is up to one man only, the man who won the nomination. In the meantime, I’m going to keep my focus on the singular threat posed by the return of Trump, now given free rein by the Supreme Court to abuse power in almost any way he desires.

Perry Bacon Jr.: Two of my colleagues named Raimondo as a potential replacement. I don’t follow Rhode Island politics or the Commerce Department closely. I am not an expert on her. What I know is that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has criticized Raimondo pretty sharply and progressives view her as one of the most centrist, pro-corporate figures in the administration. (Those are not compliments from a progressive point of view.)

I suspect the progressives would resist her as a Biden replacement much more than they would Harris or Whitmer.

And that brings me to an issue that would come to the forefront if there was a real move to replace Biden: ideology. The two last Democratic primaries have featured a real ideological battle in a way that the Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama 2008 race really wasn’t.

The more center-left candidate (Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020) won both races. But there was a sizable progressive vote. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won 43 percent of the primary vote; in 2020, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) combined for about 33 percent. And both Biden and Clinton moved left on some issues because Democratic primary voters liked what the progressives were saying. (That’s how Biden ended up promising to cancel student debt.)

The candidates being floated right now are more center-left/traditional liberal than left/progressive: Newsom, Harris, Whitmer, Moore. There is no talk of Warren and Sanders (who are also quite old like Biden) or younger progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) or Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.), who is positioning himself for a 2028 run.

The discourse is largely about center-left candidates for a few reasons. Most of the sitting Democratic governors and senators (the obvious pool of candidates) are more center-left. Second, the whole point of replacing Biden is to increase the Democrats’ chances of winning the election and more moderate candidates are perceived as being more electable. Third, the people who write columns in the New York Times and the New Yorker and are some of the biggest voices in this Dump Biden discourse are more moderate themselves and pushing candidates they are more aligned with.

In a contested convention process, the candidates would almost certainly be pushed to give some sense of who they would put in top jobs in their Cabinet, their positions on the Israel-Gaza conflict, their general economic policy vision. I suspect there are some differences between these politicians, even if they are all generally Obama-ish ideologically. And if the progressives don’t have a candidate but have some votes, they could play the role of vetoing some candidates (Raimondo) and bolstering others (Pritzker is pretty well-liked on the left).

I’m all for vigorous debate on policy issues. I think that’s democratic and positive. But I assume Democratic Party leaders don’t share that view — and this is one reason they are wary of pushing aside Biden.