Andrew Harnik/AP Photo
President Joe Biden speaks to members of the media as he arrives at the White House in Washington, February 19, 2024.
Ezra Klein has doubled down on his call for Biden to step aside in favor of an open nominating process. His latest podcast, with political scientist and longtime Democratic insider Elaine Kamarck, describes exactly how the process would work. You can read the transcript here.
To save you reading almost 10,000 words (which are worth the read): Kamarck makes a case that the process might well be energizing and not the sh*tshow that skeptics fear. It would be one part grassroots democracy and one part smoke-filled room.
If Biden were to announce that he is stepping aside, the effort to influence the nomination would take the form of organizing to select who is to be chosen as the delegates. Biden will have won most if not all primaries, but the individuals selected to serve as actual delegates will not be chosen for several more weeks or months, and the role of delegate will be up for grabs.
To quote Kamarck, “Suppose that Joe Biden dropped out in April. The people who would want to replace him will engage in a very grass-roots campaign to get their loyalists in the state elected to go to the national convention … You would be finding your supporters in the state and encouraging them to go to the county convention or go to the state convention.”
In other words, the immediate consequence would be a series of late quasi-primaries in all states. At the convention itself, with multiple hats in the ring, it is very unlikely that the nominee would be chosen on the first ballot. That’s where the smoke-filled room part comes in. As in the old days, there would be a lot of deliberation and horse trading between ballots to come up with a ticket that can win.
Kamarck argues that an open, multi-ballot convention could end up producing Democratic unity. “The fundamental issue of the Democratic Party is that Donald Trump should not be president again.” That, says Kamarck, “would create a strategic sharpening of the mind on the Democratic side.”
What about the tricky issue of Kamala Harris? In stepping aside, Biden might just throw it open. Or he might urge the convention to select Harris.
But either way, it’s hard to imagine a multi-ballot process choosing Harris, since the delgates above all want to win. And it would take some of the sting out of her being denied the nomination if she fails to prevail in a legitimate process, especially if the nominee for president or vice president were African American.
It may be that this is all wishful. A brokered convention might be perceived as elite and undemocratic. After late-night dealmaking, it might not pick the strongest nominee.
In the old days, smoke-filled multi-ballot Democratic conventions gave us FDR on the fourth ballot in 1932, but also John W. Davis in 1924, after 103 ballots.
Here at the Prospect, we’ve been debating the pros and cons of a Biden abdication for months, most recently in this video/transcript by David Dayen. Harold Meyerson has flatly argued that Biden should step aside. I’ve argued both sides of the case, writing that it might be best if someone else ran but also trying to show how Biden could run a better campaign and win.
Quite apart from what we think, the calls for Biden to step aside have taken on a life of their own. They will be all over the talk shows and social media, and the drumbeat will only grow louder as Biden invetably keeps making verbal slips.
The advantage of a fresh face, say a Whitmer-Warnock ticket, is that most of Biden’s liabilities disappear. Gretchen Whitmer is 52; Trump at 77 becomes the geezer. It isn’t Whitmer’s inflation, or Whitmer’s Israel policy, or Whitmer’s verbal gaffes. Unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, who appeared cowed by Trump’s looming presence, Whitmer is terrific at standing up to bullies, as well as delivering for working-class voters. But would she be the nominee?
History is unjust. If he were 60, the case for renominating Biden would be overwhelming. But you can’t stop time. How much better for his legacy that he be remembered as a great one-term president who put aside his own vanity to reduce the risk of the return of Trump.
Then again, I cannot guarantee how an open convention might turn out. Are we better off with the flawed and decent man we know, or the one we can’t predict?
