Lib contemplates replacing Biden or Harris

quote:

---

But it was a big thing for party elders to try to shove aside the person who was “next in line” in favor of someone who was really not that different but just seemed like he’d be a better nominee. The question Chait is asking is “why not do that again?” and the question Barro is asking is “why not apply that spirit to the bottom of the ticket?” These are good questions. But my sticking point is that they seem unnecessarily far-fetched. The impediments to mounting a primary challenge to Biden that would actually replace him with someone better are extremely large, which I think is why nobody is doing it. And while I sort of agree with Barro that the backlash to ditching Harris wouldn’t be earth-shattering, it would be pretty large and there are some big downside risks.

---

quote:

---

The basic problem with challenging Biden is that I think you need to think about how this would play out in practice. Anyone who threw her hat in the ring would naturally take a lot of shite from the powers that be, and the sheer volume of shite that they are taking would be an impediment to winning. The natural strategy would be to attack him from the left in a way that would get you plaudits from the powers that be. The way advocacy groups work, no matter how much Biden does for them, they are always going to ask for more — even if the thing they are asking for is illegal or politically untenable or substantively ill-advised. If you run against Biden by saying you’ll do that stuff, then the groups will pressure Biden to match. The likely output of this process is that Biden wins anyway, but criticisms of his age are widely aired in the press and he’s repositioned himself on issues in ways that make him less appealing to swing voters who liked the fact that he was more moderate than the other major contenders in 2020. A challenge could work out well, but that’s the base case.

---

quote:

---

The VP idea suffers from the opposite problem. Barro is right that this would probably be fine and not cause any earth-shattering backlash. At the same time, the potential upside to a new VP is very small. And the downside risks are large. The backlash might be bigger than we think. Harris might play sore loser and salt the earth. The switch might intensify scrutiny of Biden’s age and backfire. It’s not a crazy idea to put on the table. You try to win elections by addressing your vulnerabilities, and a VP who consistently polls four to five points behind the president is a vulnerability. But it’s a very risky play.

---

quote:

---

The normal rhythm of a presidential administration is that you come into office and you hit the ground hard trying to enact your agenda. It turns out that your campaign overpromised relative to what was feasible in Congress, and after 18 months in office, your supporters are a little disappointed with you while moderate swing voters are alienated by some of your ideas. The opposition gains a lot of ground in the midterms, and then, having gotten your arse kicked a little bit, you pivot to emphasizing more bipartisan ideas while your opponents in Congress are increasingly led around by their most extreme safe seat members.

---

quote:

---

The Biden Administration very much started off with this pattern, throwing deep with the Build Back Better proposal and coming away with legislation that while very significant was much smaller than that. The president became unpopular and seemed to be cruising for a bad midterm. But Dobbs happened, which created a very unusual form of backlash to policy overreach by the out party. Republicans also picked a number of terrible candidates for office in key states, often for no good reason — it’s not like there was some objective shortage of qualified GOP elected officials in Georgia and Pennsylvania. This gave Democrats one of the best midterm performances ever, including an expanded Senate majority. And I think that’s induced a certain amount of complacency during year 3 of the Biden Administration.

---