"... if you go back to the 2008 coverage of the Obama/Biden ticket, he was picked precisely because he was too old ...."
That isn't what the linked article says. The quoted paragraph is the reporter's observation and was not presented as Obama's thinking. Here's the part of that article that comes closest to reporting on Obama's thinking:
"It reflected a critical strategic choice by Mr. Obama: To go with a running mate who could reassure voters about gaps in his résumé .... Chief among Mr. Biden’s strengths is his familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues ...."
California has over 10 million registered Dems. We may not represent the median or mean Democrat and definitely not the mean or median American voter. But we do represent the mode of the Democratic Party yet spend most of the presidential election cycle on the sidelines because we aren't a battleground state.
Yes, we have representation in the Legislative Branch but it's nice to have a taste of the Executive Branch once in a while. Let's be honest, President Gavin isn't going to happen.
Good article. I thought Harris was a great VP choice in 2020, but that was short-term thinking. I think she would make a decent president, but I really don’t trust her on the campaign trail. One way around this is for Biden to pick a couple VERY strong candidates to be his spokesmen: I’m thinking of Pete Buttigieg or someone like him. That way the unofficial lieutenant could get some exposure AND be a more vigorous campaigner than the Old Man.
The ironic thing is, if Bernie won the nomination in 2020, it's extremely likely his choice of VP, once the wishcasting on Twitter over Nina Turner or Warren was done, would've been....Kamala Harris.
Also, despite not being a Kamala 2028 supporter, I think in general, people online overhype what a Whitmer/Warnock ticket would do, and underhype what say, a Kamala/Walz or Kamala/Shapiro ticket would do. It's a lot closer range of options than people think. Kamala isn't being defeated w/ 350 EV's, and Whitmer isn't winning w/ 350 EV's.
"If he’d put Gretchen Whitmer on the ticket, after all, the odds are good that he would have faced loud calls to step aside in 2024 in her favor. And if he didn’t step aside, the mere existence of those calls would have tempted some other Democrats into the race."
Interesting counterfactual speculation. But seriously, why has no big name stepped up? Is there any decent reporting on this?
BTW I am not anti-Biden. I just feel the right time to find out how much age matters is the primary, not the general.
Maybe. I would like some reporting indicating this is actually why no one is running.
Is it widely viewed as suicidal? And inaugurating an 82 year old is not widely viewed as suicidal? There is consensus on these points? Every prominent Dem sees it the same way?
A lot of people get Harris's campaign wrong IMO. Folks like Nate Silver look at how she dropped out fairly early and declare she's bad at politics, but a presidential nomination isn't like being on Survivor where the longer you last the better you've done, it's more like a poker game at a tournament where there are some high risk/high reward strategies that maximize your chance to win but mean you could go bust quickly and some strategies (like never bet) that maximize the time you stay in but make it really, really unlikely you'll win. Basically what happened is after Harris's big break out debate moment her fundraising surged and she went with a high risk/high reward strategy of staffing up nationally to maximize her change of being able to win if she caught fire but she didn't and so the money ran out and she had to drop out. Meanwhile someone like Klobuchar did the low risk strategy of conserving her money for the long run and so she was able to stay in much longer but had little campaign infrastructure (even in her own state) to be able to take advantage of a break out. The 88/92 Dem races are good examples of this, under the "Survivor" theory Jackson and Jerry Brown ran great campaigns and are skilled politicians, after all they took it all the way to the convention. But in reality The Duke/The Big Dogs real threats were people who dropped out early (Hart, Biden in 88, Cuomo, Harkin, probably Kerrey in 92) not factional candidates like Jackson and Brown.
Yup - instead of hanging around for months and probably losing support, she cashed out, supported the nominee, and at this moment in time, is the person alive most likely to be President on January 20th, 2029.
A lot of the framing here is silly in my opinion. Most presidential deaths occurred in the 19th century which was simply a different time. Only two presidents have died in office in the last century and one of those (FDR) was basically baked into his unprecedented fourth term in office. Many other presidents would die in office if they had served four terms
I’d argue that the Harris selection was comparatively egregious since Biden should have realized that he was picking a far more likely successor. Of the VP picks made in my lifetime I’d rank:
Best: Biden himself. Had Trump not won in 2016 Biden would not be president and not have ran. The reasons Obama chose him were sound at the time and Biden WAS a good governing partner
2. Mike Pence. Pence brought Trump credibility with Evangelicals and helped run the country since Trump didn’t know how to do that himself.
3. Al Gore. Gore would be my example of perfectly reasonable and no frills choice
4. Kamala Harris. I don’t think she brings much to Biden, but nor do I think she hurts him much either. She’s been fine but clearly isn’t a successor
5. Dick Cheney. Cheney was a governing choice and wound up accumulating too much power
More likely than not, Biden picked Harris for the same reason that Obama picked him, because he believed she would be the weaker candidate against him in 2024 and used the diversity lobby as cover. A possible solution would be to transfer the power of VP choice to some more objective process, e.g., synthesis of polls on best person to replace the president.
"the fact that nobody thinks she would be a good party leader turned out to be good for Biden"
... if you narrowly construe what's good for Biden as the course he is pursuing. I think it would be good for Biden to say mission accomplished, retire, and avoid the almost inevitable humiliation of a second term.
I think picking the Governor of Michigan as the VP candidate during the worst of the pandemic would have been a very bad look for the Democrats, not to mention for Whitmer herself.
Agreed, there would be lawsuits. Similar to what is happening now for Trump and treason/insurrection question. The 22nd Amendment is pretty clear though. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Obama wouldn't be elected, he would become President through normal chain. I get this feels a little like Putin/Medvedev and that could be a downside politically.
Let's assume there is a lawsuit. Politically, I'm not sure it is to the benefit of the GOP to fight against Obama on the ticket. Wonks will say Trump is scared, which makes him look weak.
With respect to the lawsuit, the argument can be made that he can be VP and if he can't be President by appointment, then that should be argued if the appointment happens. On election day, the matter wouldn't be ripe for argument because there is no controversy at that time.
The one problem is if Biden becomes incapacitated before the election. In that case, Obama could not step in to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
I'm presuming this was intended to be a reply to me? You're welcome to argue that the 22nd Amendment is pretty clear, but I would say that the 12th Amendment is also pretty clear. The ambiguity is whether the 22nd Amendment creates an eligibility criterion to be able to be President. I think the most natural reading of the 22nd Amendment, especially viewed in light of its drafters' intent, is that it does, but that's a question for SCOTUS, so good luck with that.
As for the idea that Trump would roll over and not contest Obama being nominated as VP: (1) that's semi-irrelevant because a state SOS could unilaterally refuse to put Obama's name on the ballot regardless of what Trump wants and (2) the opportunity to fight against the imminent return of the "Obama Tyranny" would be the most spectacularly invigorating thing for Trump and the GOP political establishment short of Biden promising to make puberty blockers available OTC and freely dispensed in elementary schools.
Yeah…it was a response..so I appreciate you following up. While I agree that it would be litigated, I’m not sure I agree that the 22nd Amendment creates an additional criteria. If they meant that any President that completed 2 terms could not be President again, then the amendment wouldn’t have referred to the election of a President. It more plainly could have said straight out, couldn’t be President. That’s more plain.
Same goes for qualification for Vice President. If this was meant to be constrained, then the 22nd Amendment would have included the VP as well as the President.
We could go into a whole back and forth on intent vs. clearly written amendment, and that would be fun! The political/legal wags would love this as it would certainly help the ratings….on all sides.
With respect to the points on Trump. I absolutely do think Trump would go after Obama. He’d call it unconstitutional and make the points that you’re making. This would be the 2024 version of Stop the Steal. I just don’t believe that gets him votes. Politically, its not helpful. But, maybe I’m wrong on that. Maybe voters would feel that it is not fair. While allowable, the intent is as you say and people feel that is breaking the rules and don’t want to vote for someone that bends the rules in this way. Perhaps the current views of Obama are more out of nostalgia and if he were to get into the ring, the numbers will drop such that it hurts Biden. I could see arguments that my original post is a Bad Idea electorally for the Democrats. Still its worth the thought experiment. We could always move to Michelle Obama next!
It seems to me that if the party's goal is to win multiple elections in a row, they need to bow to the fact that in today's political climate performance (in the theatrical sense) is at least as important as performance (in the good-governance sense). That would mean selecting highly-charismatic candidates for BOTH president and vp. The problem with that from a Democratic Party perspective is that it seems like the party can barely come up with one candidate who is both competent and charismatic at a time. The real question, then, is why is that the case? I would suggest a couple of possible reasons:
1. The "staffers are not representative of the median voter" problem that so often comes up in these discussions.
2. Democrats are legitimately more interested in good governance, and therefore underweight the value of raw campaigning ability relative to Republicans.
3. (Most likely, I think), some combination of the above.
Sorry, I’m looking at the GOP and I only see one charismatic candidate. Dems like candidates who say they want govt to do lots of things - that’s not the same as actually being competent at doing them.
I guess I just have no problem with “short term” thinking in this case.
Biden’s goal was to win an effectively 50/50 election against Trump. He made what he thought was the best move to do that (by generating enthusiasm / reducing complaining). He cared less about what happened beyond that. I think that’s fine!
Think about it this way: let’s posit that Whitmer is objectively a better politician / presidential candidate in 2028. But when she’s chosen as VP, there is a risk (unclear how material, but non-zero) that the Black vote shifts slightly (~2 pts) away from Biden and towards Trump. Biden ultimately wins by 44K votes combine across Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona. That shift, if it materializes, costs him the election. In this hypothetical, the risk with Harris is zero. Is Whitmer the right call in that case? I’d argue not.
You can certainly dispute whether it’s true that Harris would actually generate the most enthusiasm of the VP options. But IMO there’s nothing wrong with the thought process that says “let me make a pick to win this election and figure everything else out later.”
It was only a 50/50 election in hindsight. Polling was overwhelmingly in Biden’s favor. And in any case the idea that generating enthusiasm is more important to winning than not alienating undecideds needs more scrutiny.
Actually, my other comment granted a point that I don’t want to grant: it doesn’t make sense to treat every election as 50/50, because not every election is 50/50. If Obama in 2008 made a pick that prioritized the immediate win above all else, even though he was obviously an overwhelming favorite, that would have been malpractice, akin to risking an injury to a key player in the service of winning a game you’re leading by double digits. You can’t just approximate all elections to a tie in order to support the idea that short-term gain is the only relevant factor.
No, if the reporting linked in the article was correct, he considered another factor, “who will be unlikely to run for president in the future and therefore less of a problem in my administration.” Matt doesn’t like that reason either, but it is not related to winning the election. At any rate, I’ll stand my my comment: to the extent Obama ranked winnability over other considerations for a nearly unlosable election, that was malpractice. And it may have foretold other failures, such as making the stimulus too small because he didn’t like the optics of making it bigger.
Okay, fine, but then we're still left with the question of whether Harris actually was likely to be the best candidate from a winnability standpoint—and to such an extent that all other liabilities were irrelevant.
Biden said “I want to choose the person who will help me win”
MY says “you should additionally look at who would be the best candidate in 2028” and other amorphous factors
I think Biden is right and MY is wrong. Did Biden actually choose the best person to help him win? Who knows! But it’s a totally justified way of thinking about the pick.
Here's an Idea. Choose Obama to be VP in 2024. The 22nd amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of the President. It doesn't say anything about Vice President. Incentives for those involved:
Biden - Definitely a big boost for his prospects. Voters are concerned with his age and this deals with the unknown. Voters know Obama can do the job. This increases Biden's electoral prospects, so he would definitely be for it.
Harris - Normally, we'd think this is a bad thing, but she is not getting any love at the moment and I don't think she'd be the presumptive nominee like Bush I or Gore. She can get away from Biden, do her own thing, make a splash where she can really run on her own platform in 2028. Also, stepping aside for the good of the party could give her a feel good glow.
Obama - Couple different angles here. He is currently the most liked political candidate with 51% of voters having a positive view of him per recent NBC poll. By comparison, Biden is at 42% and Trump's at 35%. He can help Biden win and it's against Trump! That must feel satisfying for him.
Based on actuarial tables, he gets a 1 in 5 chance to run the country again. Since he can't be elected president, he doesn't have to try hard to make a name for himself. He can be a senior advisor; perhaps he gets a special mission for Mideast peace. On a personal level, his kids are mostly grown up, so he probably has time on his hands. He's made his money and is financially set.
How to make this happen? Harris has to announce she is stepping aside. Perhaps she points to the open CA senate seat. She's got to start campaigning, so she announces early. This opens things up. Biden spends a lot of time thinking about potential running mates (not really). He asks Obama for his view and Obama recommends himself. Yes, yes, this is the Dick Cheney move. It worked once! Why not a second time?
That would require SCOTUS' blessing because you would have to resolve whether nominating a twice-elected former President to be VP violates the 12th Amendment, which states that the VP must meet all the eligibility requirements to be President. I.e., does the 22nd Amendment create an additional eligibility criterion to be President besides those listed in the Constitution itself?
(Note also that you would probably have to work very hard to come up with a scenario more likely to cause a literal apocalyptic freakout amongst Republicans than going through some convoluted process that looks like it's engineered to give Obama a third term in office.)
"... if you go back to the 2008 coverage of the Obama/Biden ticket, he was picked precisely because he was too old ...."
That isn't what the linked article says. The quoted paragraph is the reporter's observation and was not presented as Obama's thinking. Here's the part of that article that comes closest to reporting on Obama's thinking:
"It reflected a critical strategic choice by Mr. Obama: To go with a running mate who could reassure voters about gaps in his résumé .... Chief among Mr. Biden’s strengths is his familiarity with foreign policy and national security issues ...."
California has over 10 million registered Dems. We may not represent the median or mean Democrat and definitely not the mean or median American voter. But we do represent the mode of the Democratic Party yet spend most of the presidential election cycle on the sidelines because we aren't a battleground state.
Yes, we have representation in the Legislative Branch but it's nice to have a taste of the Executive Branch once in a while. Let's be honest, President Gavin isn't going to happen.
How dare you insult John Sparkman!
Good article. I thought Harris was a great VP choice in 2020, but that was short-term thinking. I think she would make a decent president, but I really don’t trust her on the campaign trail. One way around this is for Biden to pick a couple VERY strong candidates to be his spokesmen: I’m thinking of Pete Buttigieg or someone like him. That way the unofficial lieutenant could get some exposure AND be a more vigorous campaigner than the Old Man.
The ironic thing is, if Bernie won the nomination in 2020, it's extremely likely his choice of VP, once the wishcasting on Twitter over Nina Turner or Warren was done, would've been....Kamala Harris.
Also, despite not being a Kamala 2028 supporter, I think in general, people online overhype what a Whitmer/Warnock ticket would do, and underhype what say, a Kamala/Walz or Kamala/Shapiro ticket would do. It's a lot closer range of options than people think. Kamala isn't being defeated w/ 350 EV's, and Whitmer isn't winning w/ 350 EV's.
The biggest unanswered question of the race:
Why has no prominent Democrat challenged Biden?
Matt has a theory here:
"If he’d put Gretchen Whitmer on the ticket, after all, the odds are good that he would have faced loud calls to step aside in 2024 in her favor. And if he didn’t step aside, the mere existence of those calls would have tempted some other Democrats into the race."
Interesting counterfactual speculation. But seriously, why has no big name stepped up? Is there any decent reporting on this?
BTW I am not anti-Biden. I just feel the right time to find out how much age matters is the primary, not the general.
"why has no big name stepped up?"
Because seriously primarying your own incumbent president is widely viewed as being suicidal for the party?
Maybe. I would like some reporting indicating this is actually why no one is running.
Is it widely viewed as suicidal? And inaugurating an 82 year old is not widely viewed as suicidal? There is consensus on these points? Every prominent Dem sees it the same way?
A lot of people get Harris's campaign wrong IMO. Folks like Nate Silver look at how she dropped out fairly early and declare she's bad at politics, but a presidential nomination isn't like being on Survivor where the longer you last the better you've done, it's more like a poker game at a tournament where there are some high risk/high reward strategies that maximize your chance to win but mean you could go bust quickly and some strategies (like never bet) that maximize the time you stay in but make it really, really unlikely you'll win. Basically what happened is after Harris's big break out debate moment her fundraising surged and she went with a high risk/high reward strategy of staffing up nationally to maximize her change of being able to win if she caught fire but she didn't and so the money ran out and she had to drop out. Meanwhile someone like Klobuchar did the low risk strategy of conserving her money for the long run and so she was able to stay in much longer but had little campaign infrastructure (even in her own state) to be able to take advantage of a break out. The 88/92 Dem races are good examples of this, under the "Survivor" theory Jackson and Jerry Brown ran great campaigns and are skilled politicians, after all they took it all the way to the convention. But in reality The Duke/The Big Dogs real threats were people who dropped out early (Hart, Biden in 88, Cuomo, Harkin, probably Kerrey in 92) not factional candidates like Jackson and Brown.
Since Nate loves poker you should run that analogy by him over at his Substack sometime when it's appropriate over there, and see what he thinks.
Heh, I don't think Nate take comments from the peanut gallery anymore but not a bad idea.
I've only very rarely commented over there thus far, and he did reply to one of my comments.
Yup - instead of hanging around for months and probably losing support, she cashed out, supported the nominee, and at this moment in time, is the person alive most likely to be President on January 20th, 2029.
A lot of the framing here is silly in my opinion. Most presidential deaths occurred in the 19th century which was simply a different time. Only two presidents have died in office in the last century and one of those (FDR) was basically baked into his unprecedented fourth term in office. Many other presidents would die in office if they had served four terms
I’d argue that the Harris selection was comparatively egregious since Biden should have realized that he was picking a far more likely successor. Of the VP picks made in my lifetime I’d rank:
Best: Biden himself. Had Trump not won in 2016 Biden would not be president and not have ran. The reasons Obama chose him were sound at the time and Biden WAS a good governing partner
2. Mike Pence. Pence brought Trump credibility with Evangelicals and helped run the country since Trump didn’t know how to do that himself.
3. Al Gore. Gore would be my example of perfectly reasonable and no frills choice
4. Kamala Harris. I don’t think she brings much to Biden, but nor do I think she hurts him much either. She’s been fine but clearly isn’t a successor
5. Dick Cheney. Cheney was a governing choice and wound up accumulating too much power
6. Dan Quayle. Awful in every respect
Good point on the 19th century.
More likely than not, Biden picked Harris for the same reason that Obama picked him, because he believed she would be the weaker candidate against him in 2024 and used the diversity lobby as cover. A possible solution would be to transfer the power of VP choice to some more objective process, e.g., synthesis of polls on best person to replace the president.
"the fact that nobody thinks she would be a good party leader turned out to be good for Biden"
... if you narrowly construe what's good for Biden as the course he is pursuing. I think it would be good for Biden to say mission accomplished, retire, and avoid the almost inevitable humiliation of a second term.
I think picking the Governor of Michigan as the VP candidate during the worst of the pandemic would have been a very bad look for the Democrats, not to mention for Whitmer herself.
Agreed, there would be lawsuits. Similar to what is happening now for Trump and treason/insurrection question. The 22nd Amendment is pretty clear though. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Obama wouldn't be elected, he would become President through normal chain. I get this feels a little like Putin/Medvedev and that could be a downside politically.
Let's assume there is a lawsuit. Politically, I'm not sure it is to the benefit of the GOP to fight against Obama on the ticket. Wonks will say Trump is scared, which makes him look weak.
With respect to the lawsuit, the argument can be made that he can be VP and if he can't be President by appointment, then that should be argued if the appointment happens. On election day, the matter wouldn't be ripe for argument because there is no controversy at that time.
The one problem is if Biden becomes incapacitated before the election. In that case, Obama could not step in to be the Democratic presidential nominee.
what post are you replying to?
He was replying to me.
I'm presuming this was intended to be a reply to me? You're welcome to argue that the 22nd Amendment is pretty clear, but I would say that the 12th Amendment is also pretty clear. The ambiguity is whether the 22nd Amendment creates an eligibility criterion to be able to be President. I think the most natural reading of the 22nd Amendment, especially viewed in light of its drafters' intent, is that it does, but that's a question for SCOTUS, so good luck with that.
As for the idea that Trump would roll over and not contest Obama being nominated as VP: (1) that's semi-irrelevant because a state SOS could unilaterally refuse to put Obama's name on the ballot regardless of what Trump wants and (2) the opportunity to fight against the imminent return of the "Obama Tyranny" would be the most spectacularly invigorating thing for Trump and the GOP political establishment short of Biden promising to make puberty blockers available OTC and freely dispensed in elementary schools.
Yeah…it was a response..so I appreciate you following up. While I agree that it would be litigated, I’m not sure I agree that the 22nd Amendment creates an additional criteria. If they meant that any President that completed 2 terms could not be President again, then the amendment wouldn’t have referred to the election of a President. It more plainly could have said straight out, couldn’t be President. That’s more plain.
Same goes for qualification for Vice President. If this was meant to be constrained, then the 22nd Amendment would have included the VP as well as the President.
We could go into a whole back and forth on intent vs. clearly written amendment, and that would be fun! The political/legal wags would love this as it would certainly help the ratings….on all sides.
With respect to the points on Trump. I absolutely do think Trump would go after Obama. He’d call it unconstitutional and make the points that you’re making. This would be the 2024 version of Stop the Steal. I just don’t believe that gets him votes. Politically, its not helpful. But, maybe I’m wrong on that. Maybe voters would feel that it is not fair. While allowable, the intent is as you say and people feel that is breaking the rules and don’t want to vote for someone that bends the rules in this way. Perhaps the current views of Obama are more out of nostalgia and if he were to get into the ring, the numbers will drop such that it hurts Biden. I could see arguments that my original post is a Bad Idea electorally for the Democrats. Still its worth the thought experiment. We could always move to Michelle Obama next!
Thank you for focusing on this!
It seems to me that if the party's goal is to win multiple elections in a row, they need to bow to the fact that in today's political climate performance (in the theatrical sense) is at least as important as performance (in the good-governance sense). That would mean selecting highly-charismatic candidates for BOTH president and vp. The problem with that from a Democratic Party perspective is that it seems like the party can barely come up with one candidate who is both competent and charismatic at a time. The real question, then, is why is that the case? I would suggest a couple of possible reasons:
1. The "staffers are not representative of the median voter" problem that so often comes up in these discussions.
2. Democrats are legitimately more interested in good governance, and therefore underweight the value of raw campaigning ability relative to Republicans.
3. (Most likely, I think), some combination of the above.
Sorry, I’m looking at the GOP and I only see one charismatic candidate. Dems like candidates who say they want govt to do lots of things - that’s not the same as actually being competent at doing them.
I guess I just have no problem with “short term” thinking in this case.
Biden’s goal was to win an effectively 50/50 election against Trump. He made what he thought was the best move to do that (by generating enthusiasm / reducing complaining). He cared less about what happened beyond that. I think that’s fine!
Think about it this way: let’s posit that Whitmer is objectively a better politician / presidential candidate in 2028. But when she’s chosen as VP, there is a risk (unclear how material, but non-zero) that the Black vote shifts slightly (~2 pts) away from Biden and towards Trump. Biden ultimately wins by 44K votes combine across Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona. That shift, if it materializes, costs him the election. In this hypothetical, the risk with Harris is zero. Is Whitmer the right call in that case? I’d argue not.
You can certainly dispute whether it’s true that Harris would actually generate the most enthusiasm of the VP options. But IMO there’s nothing wrong with the thought process that says “let me make a pick to win this election and figure everything else out later.”
It was only a 50/50 election in hindsight. Polling was overwhelmingly in Biden’s favor. And in any case the idea that generating enthusiasm is more important to winning than not alienating undecideds needs more scrutiny.
Pretty much every presidential election should be seen as 50/50 going in.
Actually, my other comment granted a point that I don’t want to grant: it doesn’t make sense to treat every election as 50/50, because not every election is 50/50. If Obama in 2008 made a pick that prioritized the immediate win above all else, even though he was obviously an overwhelming favorite, that would have been malpractice, akin to risking an injury to a key player in the service of winning a game you’re leading by double digits. You can’t just approximate all elections to a tie in order to support the idea that short-term gain is the only relevant factor.
Obama did make a pick that prioritized the immediate win above all else!
He certainly wasn’t trying to pick a future leader of the party or the best candidate for 2016.
No, if the reporting linked in the article was correct, he considered another factor, “who will be unlikely to run for president in the future and therefore less of a problem in my administration.” Matt doesn’t like that reason either, but it is not related to winning the election. At any rate, I’ll stand my my comment: to the extent Obama ranked winnability over other considerations for a nearly unlosable election, that was malpractice. And it may have foretold other failures, such as making the stimulus too small because he didn’t like the optics of making it bigger.
Okay, fine, but then we're still left with the question of whether Harris actually was likely to be the best candidate from a winnability standpoint—and to such an extent that all other liabilities were irrelevant.
I totally agree!
But now you’re quibbling on choice, not process.
Biden said “I want to choose the person who will help me win”
MY says “you should additionally look at who would be the best candidate in 2028” and other amorphous factors
I think Biden is right and MY is wrong. Did Biden actually choose the best person to help him win? Who knows! But it’s a totally justified way of thinking about the pick.
Here's an Idea. Choose Obama to be VP in 2024. The 22nd amendment states that no person shall be elected to the office of the President. It doesn't say anything about Vice President. Incentives for those involved:
Biden - Definitely a big boost for his prospects. Voters are concerned with his age and this deals with the unknown. Voters know Obama can do the job. This increases Biden's electoral prospects, so he would definitely be for it.
Harris - Normally, we'd think this is a bad thing, but she is not getting any love at the moment and I don't think she'd be the presumptive nominee like Bush I or Gore. She can get away from Biden, do her own thing, make a splash where she can really run on her own platform in 2028. Also, stepping aside for the good of the party could give her a feel good glow.
Obama - Couple different angles here. He is currently the most liked political candidate with 51% of voters having a positive view of him per recent NBC poll. By comparison, Biden is at 42% and Trump's at 35%. He can help Biden win and it's against Trump! That must feel satisfying for him.
Based on actuarial tables, he gets a 1 in 5 chance to run the country again. Since he can't be elected president, he doesn't have to try hard to make a name for himself. He can be a senior advisor; perhaps he gets a special mission for Mideast peace. On a personal level, his kids are mostly grown up, so he probably has time on his hands. He's made his money and is financially set.
How to make this happen? Harris has to announce she is stepping aside. Perhaps she points to the open CA senate seat. She's got to start campaigning, so she announces early. This opens things up. Biden spends a lot of time thinking about potential running mates (not really). He asks Obama for his view and Obama recommends himself. Yes, yes, this is the Dick Cheney move. It worked once! Why not a second time?
That would require SCOTUS' blessing because you would have to resolve whether nominating a twice-elected former President to be VP violates the 12th Amendment, which states that the VP must meet all the eligibility requirements to be President. I.e., does the 22nd Amendment create an additional eligibility criterion to be President besides those listed in the Constitution itself?
(Note also that you would probably have to work very hard to come up with a scenario more likely to cause a literal apocalyptic freakout amongst Republicans than going through some convoluted process that looks like it's engineered to give Obama a third term in office.)
If you’re going to go to all of this trouble you might as well swap out the whole ticket and make Whitmer the nominee.