I think it is really important to acknowledge that the situation right now is much more uncertain than it’s ever been
swapping out a candidate at this stage has never been done
we are flying completely blind and even our guesses are less informed than ever, which comes with high downside risk
Big hat tip to @jbouie.bsky.social for treating uncertainties as uncertain, with both downside and upside potential, rather than what many pundits are doing: imagine a positive scenario and act as if things will smoothly go that way if only people try it.
Doesn't seem like a high bar. And yet...
people are getting caught up in the fact that sticking with the status quo seems untenable, and indeed it might be
the downside risks there are clear and obvious and well understood
but even if you decide that means it’s worth the risk of switching you have to acknowledge how risky it is too
The entire point of a modern convention is a 4 day infomercial for your nominee. They’re not designed to be the place where the nominee gets decided! It would be a disaster
I think that picture is the reality regardless after last night's debate. Having a candidate be propped up for four years only to have him completely implode on the biggest stage is an awful look for the party, and I can't see how swapping out Biden for Harris makes things any worse
Bouie made a good point that I think sticks, that any replacement would essentially be a standard bearer, so there might not be as much risk as we think, though obviously that's not for sure
A group of intrepid 2024 journalists time travel to June 1936. Upon "discovering" that FDR is indeed paralyzed, they make short work of getting him to bow out of the election. Henry Skillman Breckinridge replaces him. Alf Landon wins in a landslide.