Risk versus reward

The impulses driving the current debate about Biden's candidacy

Over the next few days, we’ll learn whether Joe Biden remains the nominee or the party chooses someone else. The argument is ripping at the party, but has not really broken out into open warfare. The situation is sucking up most of the oxygen in the political room, distracting from concerning issues like the Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents, including Trump, limited immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. I suspect the July Fourth break will give the party time to sort it out.

The folks who want Biden to stay in the race view the debate debacle in terms of a normal campaign. The president had a bad night, but nothing that he cannot overcome. The public will probably move on and the next situation that dominates a news cycle might be more damaging to Trump than Biden. They believe the campaign will continue to go back-and-forth through October like most closely contested races.

They are also risk averse. Biden might not be perfect, but Democrats know what they’ve got. They can try to reduce his exposure to unfriendly media and control his setting as much as possible. The Biden campaign has kept the race close while limiting the president’s exposure. He rarely talks to unfriendly reporters and stays away from unscripted events like debates. They can continue what seems to have been working so far.

For them, switching horses at this time poses great risk. Nobody knows how changing nominees will play out. Democrats could find themselves in a bitter fight or with unfit candidates. David Frum wrote yesterday, “The alternatives are untested, and who knows how they would actually perform?” He warns that the party could devolve into an internal culture war, searching for candidates who appeal to one subgroup or the other instead of sticking with Biden’s more centrist coalition. Those fears are legitimate.

There’s also a contingent of people who believe that the race is bigger than Biden. They believe that voters will see Trump as such an existential threat that they will support anybody down the stretch. The Biden political operation almost certainly believes that and also believes that they have not had the opportunity to make that case yet. Switching horses now is giving up before the real fight even begins. They also believe that there’s not enough time to start from scratch.

People who want to replace Biden believe that the president’s debate performance was politically fatal. They also believe that they saw a candidate who will not be capable of serving for four more years. I fall into that category. I saw a man in physical and cognitive decline and I don’t believe it will get better going forward. I also believe most of the people who watched the debate saw what I did. To convince most people that the debate was a blip or bad night, Biden will need to quickly do multiple unscripted interviews in a variety of settings, including unfriendly ones. The campaign is not doing that because they don’t trust him to succeed in those situations. Leaving him on the ballot is a disservice to the American people.

Democrats have struggled with enthusiasm with young people and African American voters disgruntled over Biden’s performance and age. They’ve tried to combat apathy by making the election about abortion, focusing on the threat to women’s health and bodily autonomy. I don’t think that strategy works with a candidate that too many people see as too feeble, both mentally and physically, to carry out the duties of the presidency. I don’t believe voters will forget what they watched last Thursday night.

While the risks of replacing Biden are real, the rewards may be high. The country may be deeply divided along cultural and social lines but they are united in their belief that they have lousy choices for president. As one person wrote on twitter, “Voters want something new. Why not give it to them?”

Democrats would have to get through a contentious period for the next six weeks and quickly come together after the convention for it to work. But if they can put together a ticket of competent candidates with experience in governing, they might excite an electorate that is dreading the choice between Biden and Trump. A short campaign may play to Democrats’ advantage with little time for the excitement of the new ticket to wear off. That’s a lot of hope with a lot of unknowns that make risk-averse people very uneasy, but it’s the essence of high risk-high reward.

The two sides of the debate break down along a risk-versus-reward continuum. Political campaigns and parties are inherently risk-averse because they often have little room for error. During an election, they lack the time for course correction, so they stick with what has worked in the past, wary of embracing something novel or new. Outsider campaigns regularly take risks because they have less to lose. They are trying to change a dynamic and doing so often requires trying new tactics or strategies.

Democrats may have more to lose by sticking with Biden than they do by switching horses. If the conversation going into the fall is dominated by Biden’s cognitive and physical abilities, he will lose. It’s hard to imagine the press letting up on those questions and harder still to imagine an answer, other than a flurry of unscripted Biden interviews, that would end the speculation. Democrats may lose with a new ticket, but it’s difficult to see how they win with this one.