1968

 Paul Campos pointed to an important historical precedent that we need to consider in the unlikely event that Biden A) fatally damaged his campaign last night and B) he understands that he did so and steps aside. 

I think A) is up for more debate than the overwhelming caterwauling this morning. It's not nothing. Biden's biggest liability is his age, and last night threw a 50 gallon drum of gasoline on that fire. However, debates are pretty awful and Biden will have a chance to turn things around. 

However...

I think you give him a week. Let the polls tell you how much damage was done. Let him sit with the debate film and see if he can see what everyone else saw. I think he's a genuine patriot, in the sense that if he knows he will lose, and there's a credible offramp, he will take it.

Which brings me to B), can he see and understand the information if it comes his way? Other presidents have had disastrous first debates. The problem for Biden is that the nature of this disaster is one that reinforces all the worst aspects of his candidacy.

So, let's presume that A and B are met. What then?

The last time we had something similar was in 1968. Lyndon Johnson - like Joe Biden - had a remarkable record of achievement during his five years in office. His liability, though, was Vietnam. He stepped aside for the good of the party to get a fresh start on the war. The result was a contentious primary that ended with RFK's assassination. If the assassination doesn't happen, then probably things turn out differently, but the Chicago conventions was an absolute disaster. 

The idea of going to an "open" convention is a recipe for similar catastrophe in this summer's convention in....Chicago. The reason why parties have ended contested conventions is that they can tear open intra-party wounds. The Democrats 1980 convention and the Republican 1992 conventions come to mind. 

The good news is that this is not a case of a challenger like Ted Kennedy or Pat Buchanan picking at the intraparty wounds. The bad news is that in 1968, the reason there were riots in Chicago was that the party leadership was going to ram through Hubert Humphrey against the anti-war wing of the party's wishes. If something similar happened in September, which factions would rebel? 

The other parallel is that I think Biden would be able to and want to pick his successor and I think he would land on a very loyal and hardworking Veep that represents a critical part of the electoral coalition. The problem with Harris - indeed the problem with every non-Biden candidate - is that they don't necessarily poll any better than Biden does.

So, unless someone can create a hybrid candidate with Harris' ethnicity and loyalty, Buttigieg's debate skills, Cory Booker's charm and Obama's eloquence, I'm not sure that stepping aside solves the bigger question of "Who can best beat Trump?"

We had that argument in 2020, and it got heated. Having it again without voter input can feel undemocratic. You'd have to be able to line up Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders AND Joe Manchin and Andy Beshear behind this new candidate before the convention. 

Harris herself - the overwhelming favorite to take the reins from Biden - did not exactly cover herself in glory in 2020, however people can change and grow. She's done a solid job as VP, but you immediately run into the latent and not so latent misogyny that sunk Hillary Clinton and the racism that helped launch Trump. There's some energy around Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, but I have no idea what it is beyond the fact that she's won a swing state, is very photogenic and hasn't had to be exposed to opposition research. Same with Gavin Newsome.

There's a separate issue about what might happen to all the money Biden has raised if it's NOT Harris. 

Basically, Biden has a week to right the ship, all the while being told that he is taking on water by people like Barack Obama and his own wife. If he can't, they have to decide what the bigger risk is:

A) keep running a good president but a bad candidate
B) move via consensus to Harris, who has her own set of issues as a candidate
C) open the convention to a potentially compelling spectacle but an acrimonious set of schisms.

That last part also reminds me about how awful the 1968 scenario would be in the age of social media. 

The preference of every Democrat right now is 

D) a new Obama-level political talent emerges that Biden gracefully concedes the floor to. 

Scenario D has been labelled "Johnny Unbeatable" in many sections of the internet. The problem is that we have seen scores of Johnny Unbeatables flame out in the primaries, including Harris herself in 2020. Hell, I can remember being all on board for Gary Hart. Ron DeSantis was going to be the guy this time; Hillary in 2008; McCain in 2000; Mario Cuomo...Scott Walker...

The primaries exist to test a candidates ability to manage a complex organization under intense pressure. You pass on that with either a unity movement to Harris or an open convention.

The rule of thumb is usually that incumbent presidents win, unless they have an strong intraparty challenger: Taft; Carter; Bush or there is a next level catastrophe: Hoover; Trump.

The decision to not challenge Biden drew from that understanding of what happened to Carter and Bush.

BUT...

There was a reason why they drew that challenger. Biden has been a very good president. The issue - his age - is not a catastrophe on the level of the Depression or Covid. In fact, withdrawing for the "good of the country" would underscore the Democratic Party's commitment to democracy and Trump's malignant threat to it. It could create novelty that might energize apathetic voters.

People generally prefer Democratic policies. Democrats win the plurality of the popular vote all the time. Generic Democrat likely wipes the floor with Trump...but maybe not?

What I truly and deeply believe is that simply jettisoning Biden without a very clear plan that has total buy-in from all the factions of the Democratic Party could lead to the same disaster of a Trump Restoration.

It doesn't have to happen this week, hell, it shouldn't. There is also the argument of "quit whining and get to work". I have to think though that discussions will take place with Biden about what happens next. It would be malpractice not to. 

We have all been in a situation where we've leapt before we looked. We've acted without a plan. That can work well, the same way that placing the home on "black" at the roulette wheel can work. 

Better to have a plan.