Sherman Dorn: I'm all in on either of them. I forget whether it's Plouffe or Axelrod who said the only thing you can never get more of in a campaign is time, but I'm surprised no pundit of any stripe is starting there because it's July 7.

My Twitter timeline is all in on Harris. My bluesky timeline is all in on Biden. Interesting.

I’m all in on Harris, so there you have one.

I'm all in on either of them. I forget whether it's Plouffe or Axelrod who said the only thing you can never get more of in a campaign is time, but I'm surprised no pundit of any stripe is starting there because it's July 7.

Don’t get me wrong. If Biden stays the nominee, I’m all in on him. But I don’t think he should stay because I’m now convinced he’s very likely to lose.

Here's what I meant: Going from wherever he is now to where he was June 26 is possible, would take time. Getting Harris as a nominee to Biden as of June 26 would take time. Getting anyone else as a nominee to Biden as of June 26 would take time. What would be the expected time for each scenario?

Expected time for Biden: I'd guess late September. Harris: early August (pre-convention). Anyone else: early September.

The thing is, Biden was already losing on June 26. He needs to get beyond that. The debate was supposed to be the spark to do that. Instead it went the opposite direction and now the hole is a lot bigger.

We could ask, similarly, how long until winning?

I think Biden is now past the election, and that’s even if he does the rest of the campaign perfectly.

Past the time early ballots go out in some key states, likely.

Also there is large, mostly unknowable downside risk to all alternatives. And the one thing we do know is that if Biden is replaced the frenzy will increase not decrease. There is downside risk to Biden, too, but it is mostly known at this point and already largely priced in.

But there’s also upside risk to alternatives. The problem is Biden’s expected value seems like it is below the winning threshold. If that’s the case then variance is our friend because a low mean, low variance outcome has a lower chance of winning than low mean, high variance.

Does it though? I see no evidence of this. I see a lot of folks working to make it so. Those same folks will work to make it so for whoever the alternative is, doubly so, because they will then have forced Biden out. It doesn’t stop when Biden is replaced. It likely gets worse.

Post