Politico and other outlets this morning are reporting the Nancy Pelosi has ‘voiced support’ for the ‘open convention’ approach to replacing Joe Biden if he steps aside. I find this more than a little surprising. To put it mildly.
Two thoughts occur to me.
The first is that in a chaotic and fevered moment like this you simply can’t believe everything you read. I don’t mean the stories are fake. I mean there’s a huge appetite for information and often not enough to fill it. So you get shards of information either fourth hand or badly out of context. This applies especially to a lot of the ‘King Lear’ reporting you’re currently seeing about Biden and the various things he’s ‘thinking’. Much of this reporting is really people on the 2nd or 3rd ring of Biden’s circle of advisors trying to figure out what’s happening or relaying what they’ve heard or surmised. Then this gets turned into a story with an official imprimatur and it’s rapidly woven into an official narrative of what’s happening. Suddenly there are lovers and haters of what ‘happened’ when it’s really not clear the thing happened in the first place.
In this case, though, the reporting seems more specific. Politico says this came up at a July 10th meeting of the California Democratic House delegation. In a discussion of next steps if Biden steps aside, Pelosi was apparently against anything that looked like party bosses making the decision rather than its voters.
That’s observation one.
My other thought is that we should be clear on the difference between substance and process. In a formal sense, if Biden bows out, the decision cannot not be open. Biden can release his delegates. He can’t assign them to Harris or anyone else. Each delegate – all but a tiny number of whom are Biden delegates – can vote for whomever they want on the convention floor. The question is whether there’s a collective decision to move toward Harris, helped forward by rapid endorsements from top party leaders. You could have an open process and – as I expect would happen – Harris would win, even in a full Thunderdome/Carville model.
Indeed, I think there’s a good chance no other major figures would even run.
Let’s consider that last point. Harris starts with all the money, institutional and name-recognition advantages. Apparently Newsom and Whitmer have already publicly ruled out challenging her. If you’re say Josh Shapiro and you challenge Harris, it’s an uphill battle. And there’s a pretty good chance you’re torching yourself permanently in Democratic politics for doing so. If you probably can’t win but stir up a lot of acrimony and division going into the general election, a lot of people won’t ever forgive that. You set yourself up as the heel in the story of Kamala Harris’s defeat if she loses and still pretty much that if she wins. And let’s be honest: it’s not like this nomination is a sure trip to the White House. I doubt any Democrat of real standing even challenges her. If any of the folks on the Democratic bench were full YOLOs as some people like to imagine one of them would have challenged Biden in the first place.
I’ll reiterate my earlier point: there’s neither the time nor the apparatus for having anything but a fake, illegitimate and parodic process. And you have no electorate to make a choice. The delegates are just a mix of Biden friends, allies, elected officials and party activists chosen for the purely symbolic purposes of ratifying his nomination at the national convention. There’s no basis or logic for them to be choosing between Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom or whoever those guys are imagining. The whole idea that you’re going to have a three week barnstorm of townhalls with the all half dozen rising governor hot shots hosted by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton is just a fantasy of politics influencers. I doubt that could happen even if James Carville organized it to appear on Pod Save America with Barack Obama as host because I don’t think anyone will throw their hat in the ring.
