SO WHO SHOULD AND/OR MIGHT REPLACE PRESIDENT BIDEN AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET?

 

7/10/24

 

As yours truly watches the developments of the last few days, I am reminded of Sam Spade’s telling the hapless rookie gunsel Wilmer Cook

 

“6, 2, and even, they’re selling you out, sonny”

 

as Kasper Gutman and Joel Cairo weigh their dwindling alternatives in the climactic scene of The Maltese Falcon.   While the outcome of the Democrats’ situation is difficult to predict as long as a guy with a tentative grip on reality holds so many cards, it sure looks like the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party, the same band of popinjays who consistently told us our own eyes were less truthful than their repeated gaslighting, are about to sell out their boy.

 

But who should these estimables select to replace President Biden, whose prospects don’t look any better than those of young Mr. Cook when the real prize is at stake?

 

It shouldn’t be hard to defeat either Donald Trump or Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race.  (See my nearly instantly seminal post THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD DUMP PRESIDENT BIDEN, BUT…, 7/1/24 and the earlier posts linked to it.)   While “None Of the above” is a perennial favorite in presidential races, this year Mr. Of the Above is making Ronald Reagan’s 1984 pummeling of Walter Mondale and Richard Nixon’s utter destruction of George McGovern in 1972 look like photo finishes.   Among the mounds of evidence that the electorate wants somebody, almost anybody, other than these two national embarrassments is last week’s Wall Street Journal poll.   When asked

 

“If you could change the majority party candidates for president, would you….”

 

47% of respondents favored “Replace both candidates on the ballot.”   That showing more than doubled the 22% who replied “Keep both candidates on the ballot.”   14% wanted to replace only President Biden, 12% wanted to replace only Mr. Trump.   Clearly, the numbers showed enormous, and growing, dissatisfaction with the standard-bearers of both major parties.   However, even these results wouldn’t be a big deal if they didn’t confirm numbers that prevailed for months; “the debate” just slightly intensified the voters’ disgust with both candidates and, of course, with one in particular.

 

So it seemed clear to yours truly as early as last November (See 2024 WILL NOT BE A BIDEN VS. TRUMP RACE, 11/18/23.) that at least one of the major parties would replace its then front runner.   In a variation on the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma, if one of the parties replaced its front-runner while the other kept its guy, the former would win in a landslide.  It seemed all too easy.  However,  the Republicans long ago decided to eschew a potential cake walk to victory in favor of a hard slog along a tortuous, peril-infested path.   The Democrats appeared poised to make the same masochistic choice until, mirabile dictu, their standard-bearer proved so inept that he unwittingly handed his Party the gift that they had previously vociferously refused to accept.   To recall a classic Twilight Zone episode, the Dems got what they needed even if they don’t know it.  (“What You Need,” Christmas evening, 1959)

So assuming the Dems don’t blow this one, they have an opportunity to walk away with this election.   All they have to do, as I outlined in my 7/1/24 post, is nominate somebody who is

·         Not Joe Biden,

·         Reasonably moderate or can be marketed as such without inducing overwhelming amounts of laughter, as was done with Joe Biden in 2020, and

·         Not burdened by excessive amounts of personal or political baggage.

 

Who meets the above criteria?    The ideal candidate would be somebody whose name elicits the reaction “Who?”   The Democrats need the most generic candidate they can find, somebody on whom its various constituency groups can project their aspirations for a standard-bearer while pummeling the electorate with the message that Mr. Trump wants to eliminate abortion, imperil democracy, and engage in all sorts of other evil designs that he somehow didn’t get around to inflicting on us during his first term.   However, it looks like the ticket of Josie Dokes and Joe Bagodonuts will not be available this year, so the Dems must look elsewhere.

 

One of my readers mentioned Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky who has managed to win, and do a reasonably good job, in a deep red state.    Mr. Beshear would indeed be a great selection.   And, while we’re on the subject of Democratic governors of red states, North Carolina governor Roy Cooper would be worth a look.   Less anonymous but equally attractive would be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who governs not a red state but, rather, a swing state that will be crucial in what will be a close election and who either is a moderate or has convinced a large number of voters of his moderation.   A not so prominent Democrat who so deeply impressed yours truly in the early stages of the 2020 candidate that I might even consider voting for him in a general election is Tim Ryan, a member of the U.S. House from Ohio.    However, that Mr. Ryan holds some viewpoints that might induce yours truly to remotely consider backing him surely dooms his chances in today’s Democratic Party, which is sad for our constitutional Republic, but that is grist for another mill.

 

Let’s be honest with ourselves, though:   None of the men mentioned in the last paragraph is going to appear on the top of the Democratic ticket.   So let’s get serious.

 

How about the Democratic Joan of Arc, Michelle Obama?   Clearly, the Obama camp would be pleased with this choice for any number of reasons, not the least of which is a nostalgic yearning for what they consider the good old Obama days.   And the guy who was in charge during those supposed halcyon days would have a lot of influence in his wife’s administration, despite the inevitable vociferous protestations to the contrary.   Nearly all the components of the Democratic base love Ms. Obama, and a large chunk of independents, primarily the group too widely defined as “suburban women” are ga-ga for Michelle, or so we are told.    Maybe most importantly, her candidacy could solve the “Kamala problem,” discussed more extensively below. 

 

However, Ms. Obama has repeatedly said she has no interest in the job.   Her only political experience and/or expertise comes from having served as First Lady and, one would hope should she somehow find herself back in the White House, from what she may have learned from her father, who was a Democratic precinct captain on the South Side of Chicago.   Therefore, Ms. Obama probably is a bridge too far, but, by today’s lowered standards for the presidency (Look, again, at the two guys currently at the top of the Republican and Democratic tickets.), having been First Lady may be all it takes.   And, while Ms. Obama might continue to insist that she is not interested in the job, the decision may not be entirely hers, especially in these parlous times for the Democratic Party, and we all know better than to take somebody even remotely connected to politics at her or his word.   So Ms. Obama, while a long shot, shouldn’t be counted out of the running entirely.

 

How about the woman who is considered by many the only practical alternative to Mr. Biden, Vice-President Kamala Harris?    Denying the sitting Vice-President, who, in this case is both Black and a woman, the nomination of a Party that is obsessed with identity politics would be, at the very least, a very bad look, and has the potential to tear the Party asunder.   And the $100mm plus in the Biden/Harris campaign war chest can, if Mr. Biden bows out, only go to Ms. Harris, as far as anybody has been able to figure out, and then only after Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris win the nomination, according to at least a few people who seem to know a thing or two about such matters.    These are two compelling arguments for somehow granting Ms. Harris the top spot on the ticket and only after Mr. Biden is formally nominated, which would be quite a trick even by Democratic Party standards.   Besides the difficulty of doing so, there is also the, according to the polls, the reality that Ms. Harris only marginally improves the Democrats’ chances in a race against Mr. Trump.   Is it worth it to go through all these machinations and rigamarole to pick up a percentage point or two?   Only, it seems, if there is no alternative, and there may not be.

 

On the other hand, dumping Ms. Harris may not tear the party apart.   James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democratic U.S. House Representative who fancies himself, somewhat justifiably, as the kingmaker in Black Democratic politics, a modern day Big Bill Dawson, and the guy who, supposedly, gave Mr. Biden the nomination in 2020, has, in at least one of his observations in the midst of this dumpster fire for the Democrats, called for a “mini-primary” to determine the Party’s nominee should President Biden drop out, insisting that whatever a “mini-primary” is would be “fair to everybody.”   If Mr. Clyburn is even halfway indicating that he will not be “all-in” for Ms. Harris in a post-Biden race for the Democratic nomination, maybe the Dems would be able to eject her from the ticket, or at least the top of the ticket, without tearing the Party apart.   But there remains the money problem, and it’s a big one.

 

If yours truly were a Democrat, and it looked like there was a way to get around the “Kamala problem,” I would be trying to drum up support for the guy who, in my opinion, would be the strongest candidate, none other than Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.   Mr. Pritzker could eliminate the money problem merely by writing a check; after all, his checkbook is responsible for a large measure of his political success to date.   But his desirability as a Democratic candidate transcends his financial assets.   He has a reasonably good story to tell, a story that he labels responsible compassion or compassionate responsibility, or some such drivel.   According to this story, he has vastly improved the finances of the state of Illinois, indeed, brought the state back from the brink of fiscal collapse, while maintaining his fealty to every Democratic social objective and interest group.   While one could poke plenty of holes in this story, it is objectively true:   Illinois is, after a term and a quarter of Mr. Pritzker, in better fiscal shape than it has been for years.   Seemingly unbeknownst to much of the electorate, or at least to those among the pundits who scream the loudest, the biggest issue in 2024 is the fiscal condition of this nation’s government, which is abysmal and bound to get worse should either of the current major party candidates get elected.   It could, probably will, also get worse should Mr. Pritzker somehow wind up in the White House, but at least he can somewhat legitimately promote himself as a governor who has actually reduced his state’s deficit and can do so while completely legitimately assuring his Party’s base that he has been an ardent champion for their interests.  J.B. Pritzker is what the Democratic Party needs.    Whether he is what the country needs is an entirely different question, but, right now, at least to the politicians, what the country needs is not the priority.

 

Any of the aforementioned, save Mr. Biden and, probably, Ms. Harris, defeats Mr. Trump in 2024.   All the Democrats have to do is accept the gift fate has, belatedly due to their own hubris, given them.