You can call American politics a lot of things, but boring is not one of them. In less than two months, we have seen the former president and Republican nominee convicted of a felony (May 30); a catastrophic debate in which President Biden showed himself incapable of running an effective campaign (June 27); an assassination attempt from which Donald Trump barely escaped with his life (July 13); and now President Biden withdrawing from the race and endorsing his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, for the job. At this rate, it would seem very unwise to be making any predictions about how this race will turn out.
But here, unwisely, are three predictions for what is likely to happen over the next few weeks, as we approach the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August.
First, as can already be seen from social media, the immediate Democratic reaction to Biden’s decision is an enormous sigh of relief, and a fresh burst of enthusiasm for the party’s chances in November. This is entirely reasonable. As I have written here before, with Biden as the nominee, barring some additional unforeseen and catastrophic event, the Democrats were certain to lose. Now, a great deal is up in the air, meaning that they have at least a chance to win. Kamala Harris is a smart, serious, former prosecutor and Senator. She would be the first female president, the second African American president—and also the first Asian-American president (her mother was Indian). The age issue, which was hurting Biden so badly, can now be turned neatly against Trump, who, at 78, has become the oldest person ever nominated for the presidency. Trump’s meandering, mendacious, and frequently incomprehensible acceptance speech at the Republican convention on Thursday can start to feature in Democratic attack ads without fear that the Republicans will counterattack with clips of a doddering Biden. Harris will get a further boost when she picks her Vice-Presidential candidate: most likely a successful governor (Jay Pritzker of Illinois, Joshua Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andy Beshear of Kentucky). Biden himself is now being hailed as a patriot who has put the national interest ahead of his own—the fact that he was forced to do so, kicking and screaming, is being tactfully overlooked. Donations to the Democratic ticket, which were drying up as Biden’s chances dropped, will rebound nicely.
Second, this burst of enthusiasm is likely to be followed by a hangover of sorts, marked by renewed Democratic uncertainty, doubts, and even some regret. It will be remembered that Kamala Harris, for all her personal qualities, did not run a very impressive campaign for the presidential nomination back in 2020, and dropped out quite early. It will be remembered that she has not accomplished very much as Vice-President—not that this is unusual for an office without many formal responsibilities which Franklin Roosevelt’s first running mate famously compared to a pitcher of warm piss. It will be remembered that she has so far not polled well with independent and swing state voters. It will be remembered that prejudice against women and people of color will inevitably cost her some percentage points of support in November. It will be pointed out that Democratic primary voters did not choose her, and her nomination will be called undemocratic (Republicans are already making this charge—although by this logic parties can never change nominees, even if the person originally selected dies or is totally incapacitated).
In addition, Harris will now have to start staking out positions on major issues, and in some of these cases she will inevitably lose support (Israel/Palestine, most obviously: you can’t say anything on the subject in the U.S. today without a loud chorus condemning you for it). And there will be some degree of confusion and delay—possibly even legal challenges—as the Democrats scramble to reorganize their convention, and to shift the funds and organization set up for Biden to Harris. But will these doubts lead to another Democrat making any sort of serious challenge to Harris for the nomination? This seems unlikely, as these challengers would immediately be accused of divisiveness, and of betraying Joe Biden’s legacy. Harris would probably have to make a major misstep to prompt a serious challenge—although that is always possible.
Third, the Republicans will immediately launch a ferocious barrage against Harris, complete with misogynistic and racist dog whistles. Trump certainly did not want Biden to step aside. He was riding the wave of the June 27 debate, and led in the polls, both nationally and in most of the battleground states. His entire campaign strategy was premised on the assumption he was running against Biden, and now he will have to retool. But while the Republicans might have benefitted from the chaos had Biden not anointed Harris, leading to a messy convention fight and a different nominee, Trump probably prefers running against Harris to running against a popular Democratic governor. Most obviously, he can tie Harris to the “failed” Biden Administration, and to the policies which he has been mendaciously mischaracterizing throughout the campaign, such as Biden’s supposed “opening” of the southern border, or his alleged tolerance of “out of control” inflation. Americans remain in a sour mood and have largely disapproved of Biden’s presidency—the Biden-Harris presidency, as the Republicans will now be referring to it. Trump and congressional Republicans will also attack Harris for supposedly hiding Biden’s condition. They might even try to impeach her for it.
We can also expect figures in the Republican party to start trotting out false claims about Harris’s eligibility for the presidency, in the manner first proposed in 2020 by Trump lawyer John Eastman (who has been indicted and faces disbarment for his role in the January 6 insurrection). The U.S. Constitution limits the presidency to “natural born” citizens, which is usually interpreted as people born in the United States, as Harris was. But neither of her parents were citizens at the time (her father was Jamaican, her mother Indian), and Eastman dubiously asserted that for this reason she should not have automatically acquired citizenship. Any legal challenge to her eligibility is likely to fail in court (although, given the Supreme Court’s recent outrageous decisions in favor of Donald Trump, who knows?). But legally barring a candidate is not the principal purpose of such manufactured “birther” controversies, such as the ones around Barack Obama’s birth which first helped bring Donald Trump to political prominence. Their more immediate point is to highlight that person’s supposedly alien, un-American qualities. A party whose more extreme members are already attacking their own Vice-Presidential candidate, JD Vance, for marrying a Sikh, will hardly have qualms about doing much worse to Kamala Harris on this score.
So there are three predictions, and to them I will add just one more: whatever happens, buckle your seat belts and ensure that your seat backs and tray tables are in an upright and locked position. The next few months are going to be turbulent.