Thursday’s presidential debate debacle — widely regarded as a low point for President Joe Biden, who appeared feeble and sometimes confused — many Democratic elites and nonpartisan pundits are suggesting a break-the-glass-in-case-of-emergency move that resided on the margins of conventional political thought just a week ago: The incumbent president, they argue, should step aside in the interest of the country, and delegates should name his replacement at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Any move to replace Biden just four months before the election carries considerable risk. The party can ill afford to pass over its sitting vice president, Kamala Harris, who represents a core Democratic constituency as a Black woman — but Harris consistently underperforms in polling. And allowing delegates to make such a momentous decision, negating the will of millions of primary voters and turning a nomination process that has been the norm for decades upside-down, is surely a recipe for division and rancor.

But it’s not like we haven’t been here before. On March 31, 1968, Lyndon B. Johnson stunned the nation when he announced that he was pulling out of that year’s presidential election. The Democratic National Convention that followed several months later devolved into chaos and violence and left the party’s eventual nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, hobbled at the start of the fall campaign season. He ultimately lost a painfully close election to Richard Nixon, in no small part because of the unruly convention in Chicago.

  • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah if we had somebody who was a consensus candidate sort of waiting in the wings, I would push harder. But we don’t. And as the article says, leapfrogging over Harris would be a terrible look.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is the problem with the Dems. Worried about giving people “their turn” or whatever. That’s why Hillary got the nomination and why we will be stuck with Kamala. We are handing Trump the presidency on a silver platter. Running an incoherent 81 year old man with a VP nobody likes because he’s the incumbent. Jesus Christ we are doomed.

      • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s not about “it’s their turn,” it’s that if she isn’t fit to be president then why is she fit to be vice president? Skipping over her creates even more messaging issues and such.

        Unfortunately the presidential election is largely a popularity contest. Optics are incredibly important. And the optics on just kind of pretending she’s not there are terrible.

        • toast@retrolemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Being fit to be president and being a candidate with a good chance to win are very different things.

          Right now, the Democrats need a candidate that can win. If this isn’t their top priority, then how can anyone take seriously their claim that Trump threatens democracy itself. They have to pick a candidate that people really want

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          It’s not about “it’s their turn,” it’s that if she isn’t fit to be president then why is she fit to be vice president? Skipping over her creates even more messaging issues and such.

          Yeah, imagine the message it would send. “We’re willing to admit when we make a mistake and we listen to party membership.”

          Completely off brand for the Democratic Party.