The part that I bolded in your quote is something I agree with, in general.
However, Mitch McConnell doesn’t face reelection every two years. Mike Johnson does. I still think that though MAGAs would cheer, enough other voters would be angry at a refusal to confirm a VP, that House members in all but the most MAGAty districts would at least hesitate to do it.
“Move on, move on! Nothing to see here.” “Everything is just fine. Pay no attention to your own eyes!”
Time to panic. Even Stephen King is dumping Biden like a hungry shit-weasel:
Like he matters. Now if Taylor Swift says it… 
Granted, there aren’t too many people on the planet that exude more Boomer energy than Stephen King…
“But we’re in the middle of an election to decide who the next VP should be. We have to let that play out.”
If it’s good enough for a SCOTUS Justice, it’s great for VP.
You clearly aren’t paying attention. Conservatives who HATE Trump are still voting for him because he’s the Party choice, and that’s better than a liberal commie socialist. Was there any conservative waivering over the SCOTUS block? Any “Constitutionalist” saying “Hey guys, the Constitution said it’s Obama’s right.”
Nope.
Now Republicans controlling the Senate would just say “We are within four years of the next election, we have to wait for America to choose.” And Republicans would fall in lockstep. You might get one Romney who would say “you’re going too far,” but are there any Romney’s left?
We have history to look at here.
New President Gerald Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller to be his Vice President on August 20, 1974. Aside from grumbling among a few conservative groups there was little opposition to the choice: Rockefeller was approved by the Senate 90-7 and by the House 287-128. And yet, Rockefeller wasn’t confirmed until December 19 - after four months of hearings.
Republicans don’t have to bury a new VP’s confirmation as bluntly as McConnell did with the Supreme Court. All they have to do is proclaim they’re performing “due diligence” and let the hearings drag on. And in the event that Mike Johnson has an attack of conscience and try to push things along, there’ll always be Marjorie Taylor Greene or some other idiot to call to overthrow Johnson as Speaker. Even if it fails, it slow things down even more.
Did he happen to mention a viable replacement?
Nope. Perhaps, in order to figure out who is viable, they could ask the people who they think is viable. Novel concept, I know.
For the most part, like King, they aren’t being asked questions-they are just giving out soundbites.
Who is the “they” you’re talking about? I’m talking about running another primary. It’s not just a matter of figuring out who is the most popular. It also helps to rebuild the lost trust.
In case it’s not apparent, I don’t actually think anyone should listen to King or any other pundit, and certainly not panic based on their comments. However, King does have some influence and you can’t blame his position on the whole “the media were really Trump supporters all along” narrative. DrDeth might have been joking, but Taylor Swift saying the same thing might actually be the final nail in the coffin, since she has actual credibility among millions of fans.
I thought it was the same “they” you brought up in your post right before mine.
Biden steps down volunarily. The DNC runs a primary. The DNC runs the candidate that wins the primary. The end. I’m not sure what’s so complicated.
King didn’t say if that’s what he had in mind, but it is one of the likely possibilities.
Would it be better for Harris if Biden stepped down completely for health reasons, both from running and from the Presidency itself, making Kamala the incumbent?
In terms of winning back the public trust? Definitely not. Just another case of railroading a certain candidate while ignoring the will of the people.
Harris might be the most viable candidate in isolation, but that ignores the trust issue. Especially since she’s one of the people that’s been lying to the public about Biden’s true cognitive state.
In terms of Harris competing also not. Taking over the presidency is a big job. Running for president is a big job. Let her focus mostly on the latter.
What sort of primary would even be possible on this time scale?
Running a primary in about a month sounds pretty complicated to me.
A quick one, for sure. Probably quicker than they can actually organize. It would be quicker if they had laid the groundwork two years ago, but I don’t think that actually happened.
After seeing how quickly the recent British and French elections went, a “quick one” sounds pretty nice about now!