COORDINATION is indeed the big reason—and probably the most important PoliSci concept that’s hardest for laypeople to grasp.
Deciding which of several plausible candidates to run would take time and energy that the party does not have and generate bitterness that the party can’t afford.
Can't speak for others, but:
If there are differences in how they would do, don't think we can guess at them. So why Harris?
1. Better vetted than any other candidate = least likely to be a disaster.
2. By far the easiest way to coordinate on the nomination and thus avoiding intraparty disaster.
This is also a huge reason that so many political journalists don’t understand why the replacement *must* be Harris.
They live for political drama, thrive on it.
Most less-involved are the opposite. They want certainty, and see “bickering” as a sign of chaos.
If it were done when ‘tis done…
This is the part that drives me up a wall. I can’t tell if it’s willful ignorance or desire for *drama* (or both), but someone on here described it as treating the nomination like a fantasy draft, and UGH.
