There are at least three possible claims like this that are often conflated:
1) If Biden steps aside, whatever the process delegates collectively decide upon for determining the nominee, Harris is by far the most likely winner.
2) If Biden steps aside, that process is very likely to foreclose the possibility that anyone except Harris is the winner.
3) If Biden steps aside, that process should, from the perspective of Democrats wanting to win the election, foreclose the possibility that anyone except Harris is the winner.
Can you clarify which of those you mean by this post?
Would whatever new campaign still have access to the Biden-Harris bank account if Harris was still the VP nominee but there was a new presidential nominee?
All of these factors are true and all represent advantages for Harris, but I don't think they come anywhere close to a case that any non-Harris alternative is absurd Twitter brained West Wing fanfic.
It's a stronger case that it SHOULD be Harris than that it WILL be, frankly.
The actual realpolitik mechanics at play are that Biden has won virtually all the ~4,000 pledged delegates at the convention, if he drops out they become unpledged (and also unpledged superdelegate votes come into play) and that group of party apparatchiks who we know very little about has complete control over the process. They are under zero formal obligation to nominate Harris, nor to advantage her over any other choice, notwithstanding the wisdom of your points above.
This was an interesting toe dipped into the waters of what some of those folks are thinking:
Good points, but Harris is almost as bad as Biden at debating and campaigning. I really wish Democrats would for once have a succession plan and raise up the next generation of leaders.
So glad that you're starting to finally use Substack, and great piece! Should be required reading for every Democrat.
There are at least three possible claims like this that are often conflated:
1) If Biden steps aside, whatever the process delegates collectively decide upon for determining the nominee, Harris is by far the most likely winner.
2) If Biden steps aside, that process is very likely to foreclose the possibility that anyone except Harris is the winner.
3) If Biden steps aside, that process should, from the perspective of Democrats wanting to win the election, foreclose the possibility that anyone except Harris is the winner.
Can you clarify which of those you mean by this post?
Agree with this 100% percent.
Would whatever new campaign still have access to the Biden-Harris bank account if Harris was still the VP nominee but there was a new presidential nominee?
All of these factors are true and all represent advantages for Harris, but I don't think they come anywhere close to a case that any non-Harris alternative is absurd Twitter brained West Wing fanfic.
It's a stronger case that it SHOULD be Harris than that it WILL be, frankly.
The actual realpolitik mechanics at play are that Biden has won virtually all the ~4,000 pledged delegates at the convention, if he drops out they become unpledged (and also unpledged superdelegate votes come into play) and that group of party apparatchiks who we know very little about has complete control over the process. They are under zero formal obligation to nominate Harris, nor to advantage her over any other choice, notwithstanding the wisdom of your points above.
This was an interesting toe dipped into the waters of what some of those folks are thinking:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/07/democratic-delegates-joe-biden-convention/678883/
The governor of Georgia is also republican. So no Warnock.
Good points, but Harris is almost as bad as Biden at debating and campaigning. I really wish Democrats would for once have a succession plan and raise up the next generation of leaders.
I remember when Biden said he would be a bridge to the future. Instead it looks like a bridge to nowhere.