Of the 11 most moderate Democrats in the House, five stated publicly that Biden should not be the nominee; of the 11 most liberal Democrats in the House, only one failed to support him.
As the political world struggles to find its bearings following President Joe Biden announcing that he will not seek reelection, it is worth taking a step back to figure out how we arrived at this moment. Some of the most public signs of sagging support for Biden came from members of the House of Representatives.
Starting shortly after the June 27 debate and continuing until days before Biden’s announcement, close to 30 House members publicly stated that Biden should not be the nominee. What separates those members from those who stayed silent or continued to support Biden, and what might that tell us about the rest of this unusual campaign season?
After taking a close look at the data surrounding this decision, what separates these groups the most is ideology. Those who called for Biden to not run were more moderate than those who did not. Of the 11 most moderate Democrats in the House, five stated publicly that Biden should not be the nominee; of the 11 most liberal Democrats in the House, only one failed to support him.
In other words, it was centrist Democrats leading the charge, while the more liberal members supported the presumptive nominee.
Why did ideology matter in this way? Members that are more moderate may have worried the most about their own reelection chances — they are likelier to be representing more moderate districts, which tend to have closer elections.
Several of those who spoke out against Biden narrowly won in 2022, such as Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington (who won by less than 1 percent), Rep. Gabriel Vasquez of New Mexico (less than 1 percent) and Rep. Patrick Ryan of New York (less than 2 percent). In contrast, some of Biden’s staunchest supporters were on the left in safe districts, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who won in 2022 with 70 percent of the vote.
With the increasing nationalization of elections, there is also less ticket-splitting. This means that down-ballot results are tied closely to the presidential contest. In the 1970s, over a quarter of ballots saw a voter support one party for president and a different party for Congress. Today, that figure is in the single digits. Members of Congress may have worried that a poor performance by Biden this fall would doom their chances of staying in office, and thus sought to distance themselves from him.
Relatedly, they may have also been worried about fundraising. It can be more challenging to encourage people to donate to your campaign when it looks like your presidential nominee will lose, and running for Congress is expensive; incumbents raised an average of almost $3 million in the last presidential election cycle. Given that Biden’s own fundraising had slowed to a trickle after the debate, members may have worried that this foreshadowed their own money problems.
Now with Biden having exited the race, what do the actions of these members portend for the rest of the election season? As of now, many in the Democratic Party are coalescing around Vice President Kamala Harris. While fundraising has initially appeared strong for Harris, how she will fare in a general election against former President Donald Trump remains relatively unknown.
Given that moderates have already made it known that they are not afraid to speak out if they believe that the top of the ticket is weak, and since they have seen that speaking out can get results, they may feel more empowered to do it again. If Harris, or whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, falters as we near Election Day, it would not be surprising to see those more moderate members of Congress making noise yet again.
Michael E. Bednarczuk, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Political Science at Austin Peay State University. He studies political behavior and public service.
