Opinion | Biden made a heroic choice. Where do Democrats go from here?

I asked my colleagues David Ignatius and Dana Milbank to help process the news. Where do Democrats go from here?

Ruth Marcus: This moment arrives with mixed feelings: relief tinged with sadness and, even more, dread about the road ahead. I’d like to pause a moment, though, on the sadness. As frustrated and — in the end — angry as I was about Biden’s unwillingness to gracefully exit the scene, this is a deeply human story of a man who saved us once from Donald Trump and I believe was sincerely convinced until the end that he was the best prospect of doing so again. It is hard to age — indeed, hard to accept our own frailties and limitations at any age — and Biden’s story, laced with tragedy throughout his career, ends on a note that is both tragic and, I hope, heroic.

David Ignatius: He looked in the mirror and finally saw what others have. I share Ruth’s sense that we are walking into a space that’s unmarked and full of danger, but it’s also exhilarating. Biden has opened the door for a generational transition. For the first time in a long while, Democrats have a chance to generate real energy about ideas and people. As scary as this is, it will be good for the party and the country. Bravo to Biden for opening the curtain as he closes his own.

Dana Milbank: Heroic more than anything. Biden did what he has always done and put the country first. I hate the way all this played out in public. I did not join the clamor demanding he drop out. I was confident he would do the right thing. Now, maybe that’s because of the clamor. Either way, he did the right thing. Where yesterday there was despair, today there is hope.

Ruth: Regarding the road from here, I think it’s fitting and appropriate for Biden to endorse Harris. But I think he is trying to anoint her and avoid the divisiveness of a fight for the nomination. I believe that would be a mistake. The delegates ought to face a choice. The problem with this process from the get-go has been the absence of choice, as David has presciently noted. There should be a process for delegates and Democrats to hear from alternatives rather than being told that they have no further say in the matter but to ratify Harris. She will likely end up being the nominee, and there are reasons to believe she will be a good standard-bearer, but process hugely matters here.

David: The truth is that Harris will be a far better candidate — and potentially, president — if she goes through the brawl of a one-month string of town halls and a “great debate” about the party and the country. If Biden blocks that or tries to circumvent it, he will be making a big mistake.

Ruth: There is already an effort from Biden aides and allies to try to circumvent that process. See, for example, the statement from former White House chief of staff Ron Klain: “Now that the donors and electeds have pushed out the only candidate who has ever beaten Trump, it’s time to end the political fantasy games and unite behind the only veteran of a national campaign.”

David: Klain, I’m sorry to say, has responded better to interest groups within the party than to the challenge of uniting the country.

Dana: I’m sad about the first part of Ron’s statement, but I think he’s spot on about the second. There is a huge amount of resentment among faithful Democrats, particularly Black Democrats, about Biden being shoved aside. If the donor class succeeded in shoving aside Harris, too, presumably for a White candidate, it would be an ugly and divisive scene. Harris almost certainly will be the nominee and should be. There just isn’t really a way around it. She would have been the formidable favorite anyway, and all the more so with Biden’s endorsement. But the obstacles to it being somebody other than Harris — refunding the party’s war chest, problems with ballot access, losing the campaign infrastructure Biden/Harris built — are insurmountable.

David: After so many months of telling the public that what they see with their own eyes was wrong, don’t Democrats need to work more on being truth-tellers — and to demonstrate that the party is not a prisoner of its own internal politics? Why is an open contest “shoving aside” the veep? She would probably win an open contest and be a better candidate for it.

Dana: Well, being on the ballot and refunding hundreds of millions of dollars isn’t just an internal consideration. I do not see any of the other usual suspects stepping up to challenge Harris. Some have already indicated they won’t. So while an “open process” would be ideal, how would that work if Harris is not being challenged?

Ruth: In the end, the choice will not belong to the donor class but the delegates. And on the need for choice: Look at the GOP insta-response. Leaving aside the lack of graciousness (Lara Trump: “He said he would ‘finish the job,’ but he couldn’t even finish his own campaign!”), it is all about Democrats’ supposed disregard for the will of the voters. Republicans may think they are being smart by insisting on a process that will create division in the Democratic ranks, but they are also right: There needs to be a process that people can respect and accept. (Also, I don’t think Team Biden would have to refund. The money can be transferred to a super PAC or the Democratic National Committee. The DNC can coordinate the spending. The infrastructure can and should be transferred to whoever is the nominee.)

Dana: I agree, Ruth, that it is up to the delegates. These are Biden delegates, and they will almost certainly tap the person Biden endorsed. They probably would have backed her regardless. This isn’t because it’s a closed process or because Democrats have rigged the game.

David: If no one challenges Harris, then she will have a united party and a strong wind at her back. I just don’t think this is the time for Biden to be the anointer. Let him take the deserved applause for what has been in many ways an unusually effective presidency.

Ruth: Deserved applause is a gracious note to end on.

Dana: Yes, I think we can all agree on that.

• David Ignatius has more to say on Biden’s decision. Take a look.
• Michelle Norris warns Democrats against casting Kamala Harris aside. See more.
• The Post’s editorial board writes that Biden’s decision “creates an opportunity for a reset, not only for his party but also for U.S. politics generally.” Read on.
• Jennifer Rubin examined six ways that Kamala Harris could transform the race. See them here.
• “Project 2025 takes many of the principles that have made this nation great and shreds them,” says Maryland’s Republican Senate candidate, Larry Hogan, in a Post op-ed.