Here’s what happened the last time Democrats replaced a nominee at the last minute
After President Joe Biden's flat performance on the debate stage on Thursday night, calls began to circulate for Biden to bow out of the 2024 race and allow a younger, more vibrant candidate to be the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee.
However, with less than 130 days to go before Election Day, Biden suddenly stepping aside may throw the party into chaos and further improve former President Donald Trump's chances of winning in November, according to one New York Times columnist. In a recent conversation the national paper of record posted between columnists Jamelle Bouie, Michelle Goldberg, Patrick Healy and Bret Stephens, the four writers discussed the prospects of what Biden ending his campaign and triggering an open Democratic National Convention could look like.
Goldberg, Healy and Stephens were all united in their opinion that Biden was a weak general election candidate given his showing in the debate, and wanted him to be replaced at the top of the ticket. But Bouie reminded his fellow columnists that if their goal was to keep Democrats in the White House, pushing Biden out may ensure the opposite outcome.
When Healy asked Bouie about the "downsides" of replacing Biden, the columnist pointed to recent history to illustrate why doing so would be politically unsound.
"First, in the same way that [1972 Democratic presidential nominee] George McGovern’s decision to replace [Vice Presidential nominee] Thomas Eagleton vindicated Richard Nixon’s argument that the Democrats were in too much disarray to trust with the presidency, a Biden decision to leave the race at this late stage vindicates the Republican argument, deployed during the debate, that the United States under Biden is unstable and insecure," Bouie argued. "Consider, as well, the pressure for Biden not just to leave the race but to leave the presidency as well. It does not make sense to say, 'Joe Biden is not so enfeebled that he cannot be president but is enfeebled enough that he cannot run for re-election.' There will be calls for him to retire outright."
The McGovern-Eagleton debacle may have been what helped Nixon get reelected. When news emerged of Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D-Missouri) previously receiving electroshock therapy for clinical depression, Democrats worried that McGovern's chances of winning the White House would be hindered and urged him to consider picking someone else, despite Eagleton already having been officially nominated at the 1972 Democratic convention just two weeks prior.
SFGate reported that even though McGovern said he stood by his running mate "1000 percent," and even though 77% of respondents in a TIME magazine poll said "Eagleton's medical record would not affect their vote," he was nonetheless replaced just 18 days after joining the ticket. Former U.S. Ambassador to France Sargent Shriver was named as running mate, and McGovern proceeded to lose to Nixon in an historic landslide. Nixon won a whopping 520 Electoral College votes, with Massachusetts being the only state to break for McGovern. He also won the popular vote by roughly 18 million ballots. Nixon then went on to be implicated in the Watergate scandal, and became the first president in U.S. history to resign from office.
Bouie also touched on the prospect of how Vice President Kamala Harris would factor into the election if Biden were to drop out of the race. When Stephens reminded Bouie of Harris' low approval numbers, Bouie countered that her public approval was largely due to her association with Biden, who continues to post underwhelming numbers in national and swing state polls. He further argued that Harris had time to improve her perception among voters, and that Democrats would be wise to give her a fair chance to be the nominee in the event of a Biden exit, given that Black voters — a core Democratic constituency — would likely revolt if she were snubbed.
"[T]he argument I am skeptical of is that choosing a different person to be the standard-bearer of the Biden administration would produce a notably different outcome," he said. "So under that scenario, you have the downside of the status quo plus the tail risk of someone who may not actually have the chops to compete on the national stage. (Everyone remember the hype behind Ron DeSantis?)"
"Again, people can run with this, but much like a fast food hamburger, it may look better in your imagination than it does on the plate," he added.
Click here to read the full conversation between Bouie, Goldberg, Healy and Stephens (subscription required).