Something dramatic has happened on the futures market that indicates clearly that the Democratic world needs to be ready to proceed wisely in the event that Joe Biden does step aside between now and the Democratic National Convention.
What has happened is that the collective “wisdom of crowds” — buyers and sellers collectively assessing the probability of one scenario or another (with the price representing the collective judgment of the probability) — has moved dramatically since some time on Wednesday regarding the chances that Joe Biden will head the Democratic ticket in the electoral contest with Donald Trump.
For some days, it appeared that the consensus was that Biden would not back down, and would remain at the top of the Democratic ticket. The market gave a probability of roughly 70% for that outcome.
But starting just yesterday, Wednesday the 17th, that number started to plummet. At this moment, the assessment is that there’s less than a one in six chance that Biden will be the nominee. It is less than clear how well-founded is this collective re-consideration of what had seemed a done deal. But when people put their money down to bet on some future scenario, their judgment is usually to be taken seriously.
People in the Democratic world disagree about whether Biden stepping down would be good or bad — presumably meaning whether it increases or decreases the likelihood that Donald Trump will be defeated in a must-win election.
But whether one welcomes or laments the idea of Democrats replacing Biden at the top of the ticket, everyone should agree that — if Biden were to step down — the Democratic world should be ready to proceed in some good way. (With “good” meaning some way that maximizes the strength of the Democrats coming out of the convention for the purpose of defeating Donald Trump.)
And am I right in assuming that we would all agree that — given the huge stakes involved — the definition of “best path” for the Party to take is whatever path is most likely to keep the powers of the presidency out of Trump’s hands? (And that all other considerations are comparatively of negligible importance?) (What Vince Lombardi said about winning being “the only thing” comes very close to describing the task facing the Democratic Party with this 2024 presidential election.)
That means that it would be wrong to decide on a nominee on any basis than best chance to win. If Kamala Harris should replace Biden, it should be because she’s judged to give the Democrats the best chance for victory. It should not be because of any automatic determination, as if it were the Constitution telling us who replaces the President if he dies or become incapacitated in office. We are free to be un-automatic, and make a considered judgment.
Nor should it be because Kamala is the preference of one man (even the President of the United States). (It should be noted that the futures market numbers demonstrate that people are assuming that if Biden withdraws, Kamala would replace him: on predictit.org, Kamala’s and Joe’s numbers are inversely related, and the other candidates’ numbers remain below 10% and hardly budge at all.)
Kamala Harris should be one of the competitors, but the decision should be based on the all-important goal of defeating Trump. And the decision should be made by the delegates to the convention— who are the best available representation of the will of the Democratic base.
Some worry that if Biden steps down — the Democratic Party will “tear itself apart.” That notion is based on the assumption that the process of coming up with a nominee would have to be conflictual, and thus divisive. And that problem can be avoided with the right process— a process everyone would agree was fair and positive.
And here’s how the competition could work, to get a good outcome, and to avoid the chaos and strife some seem to assume must accompany the selection of a new standard-bearer:
1) The potential nominees (and handful, about which there seems to be considerable consensus) would all “try out” for the position with each getting 15-20 minutes to make a speech to show how they’d get the American majority to vote for them and to reject Donald Trump. These speeches would be made visible to the delegates to the convention, and probably could get nationally televised. (A half-dozen candidates could be heard-and-seen in a two-hour period.) Such speeches — if delivered in one or two batches before the convention, and watched by an interested national audience — would in themselves do a great deal to launch the Democratic campaign: positive visions, and warnings against Trump.
2) The delegates would be the “jury” of 3-4,000 people who had been selected by Democratic voters in primaries across the country. Their being as good a representation of the Democratic base as could be assembled, at such short notice. These delegates would presumably understand --or be helped to understand — that their central task is to choose a Democrat who will prevail over the fascistic leader whose victory could be a death blow to American Democracy.
3) Those who worry about countless ballots before getting to a winner worry needlessly. With ranked-choice voting, one candidate will inevitably end up with a majority with a single ballot. (There could be a first ballot, without ranked choice, if there was a desire to allow room for candidates to withdraw and call upon their supporters to support instead the candidate those less-supported candidates think best. And then the ranked-choice vote be held on the second ballot.) Each delegate would have a ranked-choice ballot, and the means to process those ballots swiftly (minutes or hours) would be set up. Someone would emerge with the majority, with the competition having been entirely non-adversarial— each performing their best, like in figure-skating and gymnastics, not throwing punches in a boxing match — and with the process being acknowledged as fair by all. (I see no reason why the supporters of Kamala, if they agree that maximizing the chances of victory is what we’re required to do, would object to her having to compete for the delegates’ support— whether she emerged the nominee or not.)
Here’s the thing: if Biden withdraws, there will be a rush to come up with the way forward. And one can readily imagine that a suboptimal process might be chosen — hastily, without adequate forethought. If there’s to be a really good process — the one I proposed above, or some other one with the requisite virtues — wise Democratic leaders should have a plan they are ready to propose immediately for adoption.
Perhaps Biden will not step aside. In which case, everything possible must be done to help him win.
But if he does step aside, preparations should already be in place to help the Democratic world to proceed in a way that will not tear the Party apart, and that will produce a replacement nominee that has been judged by the Democratic world as being our best shot at winning.
Most of the American people, I believe, do not want what Trump represents. The support of the majority can be won, and therefore the election can be won. If Biden does withdraw, the means by which the Party replaces him can spell the difference between victory and defeat. Planning and preparation should be done before the search for such a process begins.