Who's Up Next If Biden Steps Aside?

While the Biden team scrambles to find ways to salvage their faltering campaign, pressure mounts for him to quit the race. But would anyone else have a better chance?

Jul 05, 2024

Earlier this week, I posted the first episode of a new feature, the Cutting Through videocast. In it, I discussed the fallout from Joe Biden’s disastrous performance in the first 2024 presidential debate and how we got here. You can watch the video here. You can also subscribe to the Cutting Through YouTube channel here, and encourage others to do so, especially if they prefer not to subscribe to this newsletter.

Subscriptions sustain this work, so if you have the means and motivation to become a paid subscriber, it will help me continue to not only produce this material, but to expand to video, interviews with prominent figures in policy and academia, and more. If not, just spread the word, that helps just as much!

To become a free or paid subscriber, just click this button.

You can also support this site with a one-time donation, rather than—or in addition to—a subscription, through my CashApp account by clicking this button.

Donate Through CashApp

To share this newsletter with your friends, just click this button.

Share Cutting Through

Furthering that conversation, we need to think about what happens if Biden does the right thing and withdraws. I don’t know if he will, but it is possible. That means now is the time for everyone to consider the grave threat we are facing in November.

Biden isn’t Donald Trump. He’s many things, including a major war criminal (something Trump hasn’t matched yet, though give him time…), but he’s not an autocrat bent on destroying the U.S.’ republican system of pseudo-democratic government, armed with a plan in Project 2025 to do so. That’s Trump and he must be stopped. Whether or not that is possible or realistic at this point is an open question.

As I explained in the premier edition of the Cutting Through video series, we have waited far too long to get serious about defending what little democracy we have in this country. But here we are. So, a few thoughts.

Time is truly short. There are only four months left until the election. That is not a lot of time, but we must work with what we have. Biden must withdraw for there to be realistic hope. He was trialing Trump even before the debate debacle reinforced the most negative view of Biden’s cognitive abilities. In four months, things can change, and a better candidate will stand a better chance at beating Trump than Biden.

There could be an unseen benefit to the debate embarrassment. As the writer David Klion noted, “…if you take the pov that Biden was already headed for a loss pre-debate (as polls tended to show), there’s a case the debate was positive. This was the opportunity we needed for a reboot. This is the most engaged in the election we’ve seen people so far. Beating Trump actually is important and if we get a candidate interested in and capable of taking the fight to him, maybe we will.”

Klion has something here. A better candidate and a campaign that isn’t hamstrung by an incumbent who, whatever his mental capacity, has only a limited ability to hold rallies and do the strenuous work of campaigning over the next four decisive months might turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

So, who would be the best candidate to replace Biden if he does decide to stop being a selfish egomaniac and step aside, giving us at least a long shot chance to stop Trump?

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through

There is a set of candidates under discussion: VP Kamala Harris, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Gov, Josh Shapiro, Gov. JB Pritzker, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (some lists include Sen. Cory Booker and former First Lady Michelle Obama, but I don’t get the sense that either is being seriously considered).

Klobuchar is a bland candidate, someone who has not shown herself to be strong at rallying people. Her position is markedly centrist, and that is also her reputation. There is a great need to energize voters, especially young voters. Klobuchar can’t do that.

Buttigieg is another milquetoast candidate. His 2020 presidential campaign was uninspiring to say the least. His is an even blander form of centrism than Klobuchar’s and with less direction than Biden, who at least ran in 2020 as a determined centrist (promising conservative Democrats frightened that progressive change had gotten significant support that “nothing would fundamentally change,” a promise he very much made good on to all our detriment).

Josh Shapiro, governor of Pennsylvania, and J.B. Pritzker, governor of Illinois, are a bit more charismatic than Buttigieg or Klobuchar but will suffer from a lack of national name recognition. They are both better off waiting for an opportunity to make a name for themselves on the national stage in a future election.

This brings us to the three leading candidates.

Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan’s governor, got an unusual amount of national exposure due to two incidents with far-right extremists: a foiled plot to kidnap her, and a hostile protest at the Michigan State Capitol over her stay-at-home mandate during COVID. In both cases, Whitmer was able to cast an image of a woman who would stand fast in the face of the far right, even under threat of violence.

Whitmer gave the 2020 response to Trump’s State of the Union address, further lifting her national profile. She holds great appeal for some more economically focused Independents and Democrats. Despite cutting taxes, Michigan went from a $3 billion budget deficit to a $9 billion surplus, while still increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit by four times, which helped working class Michiganders.

Whitmer backs federal Medicare for All, though she rejected a state single payer plan. She falls into the party mainstream in supporting LGBTQIA rights, reproductive freedom, and gun restrictions. She has supported some specific immigration issues, though she has been less outspoken in the last few years and is a bit vague about border questions. Notably, under her leadership, Michigan became the first state in nearly six decades to repeal so-called “right to work laws.”

Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, was front and center for presidential speculation long before Biden’s departure became an issue. He is no stranger to fighting with the far-right, having clashed with them numerous times during his time as mayor of San Francisco and as governor. These have included political fights over such things as LGBTQIA rights, eliminating capital punishment, and, of course, COVID restrictions. Newsom was tasked with addressing homelessness and worked to expand housing rather than criminalize people without housing.

But Newsom has faced some scandals, such as his wife’s nonprofit organization receiving grants and donations from corporations that were heavily lobbying her husband. Newsom would also have to deal with the fact that he was once married to MAGA lunatic Kimberly Guilfoyle. But his biggest weakness would be the extremely high cost of living in California and the extremely high state tax rate. While Newsom would certainly argue that his experience as governor of California means he has experience managing one of the largest economies in the world, high taxes are a deadly pill, especially among Independent and swing voters. And of course, for many young and more left-wing voters he would be, correctly, perceived as another in a long line of straight, rich, white guys with power.

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through

That brings us to Vice President Kamala Harris. The Democrats have sent a pretty strong signal that Harris is not who they want out there. There are some good reasons for this, and others that are not so good. Though a skilled debater, she isn’t a great campaigner, as she demonstrated in 2020, where she was able to build a small cadre of supporters, the K-HIVE, but struggled outside that group. She has been the face of some of Biden’s less popular policies among progressives, most notably immigration.

One might speculate, as I would, that she was set up to take the hits for the president in some cases, but that doesn’t change the reality. Harris has fluctuated in her career between more conservative positions—many of which were reflected in her time as District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California, a record which has not endeared her to progressives who focus on issues with over-policing and excessive incarceration—and more progressive stances during her brief time as a senator before becoming vice president.

Harris also was a beloved figure at AIPAC policy conferences during her time in the Senate, which won’t help bring back young people angry over support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The major concern with Harris is that, in the wake of Biden’s debate debacle, she doesn’t poll any better than the rest of the field. Given her position as VP, she should exceed most if not all the other candidates, at least until they can raise their profiles, but she doesn’t. Name recognition alone should give her a boost, and the fact that it does not certainly makes it reasonable that Democrats are dubious about her prospects.

Yet it is incredibly foolish to dismiss her, as it seems like some in the party are trying to do. There are three big reasons for this. One, she is a woman of color, and bypassing her in this conversation is a bad look that will, justifiably, lead many to conclude that racism and misogyny are factors here. And they are likely correct. It would be suicidal to endanger the crucial sector of women and people of color, especially African-Americans.

Two, by glossing over Harris as Biden’s replacement, they are sending a very ugly message about her selection as vice president in the first place. If they don’t believe she can succeed Biden, why was she his running mate? And if something changed in their perception of her since 2020, why was she still his running mate this time around? No matter the answers to those questions, they show, at best, that her selection reflected poor judgment, cynicism, or both.

And the biggest reason this attitude toward Harris is a mistake is that Harris is the only one who can use the considerable sums of money that have been accumulated by the Biden campaign. Any other candidate would be starting from scratch in fundraising. Certainly, it’s true that Democratic donors would be there to quickly fill those coffers, but with only four months until Election Day, that is time and money lost that anyone who wants to beat Trump simply cannot afford.

Those concerns, especially the money, should make Harris the leading contender, and could be argued to be decisive.

For my money, Whitmer is the best candidate. She projects strength, she is smart, she has a history of facing down MAGA and winning. She is far from perfect, but there is enough there to appeal to progressives and to more conservative Democrats and a good chunk of Independents. Among these choices, I think she would be the best-suited for the White House and the best campaigner as well.

But Harris’ advantage in name recognition and her access to the Biden funds and the already established campaign machinery mean she has unmatched advantages in terms of defeating Trump. To my mind, only she and Whitmer should be seriously considered out of the field of likely contenders.

All of this is moot if Biden doesn’t step aside, though, and I still don’t think he will. And if he doesn’t, we’d all better be ready to fight like hell, because Trump has just been granted the powers of an autocrat by the Supreme Court, and his cohorts have drawn up a much more considered plan, in Project 2025, than they had when they were surprised to have won in 2016.

Biden will already go down in history as the engineer and enabler of one of the most horrific genocides in human history. One can only hope he doesn’t add to it by helping to usher in an era of fascism in the United States. To avoid that, he must step aside and, for once, the Democrats need to make a good decision about his replacement.

Donate Through CashAPP

Share Cutting Through