Joe Biden may have meant something else by "You aren't going anywhere, kid," but it may be the most accurate statement Biden has ever made:

President Biden to VP Kamala Harris today: “You are not going anywhere, kid. Because we are not gonna let you go.” #biden #kamalaharris #election2024 #trending #viralshorts #thedailyguardian pic.twitter.com/nqWWRh2dLP

— The Daily Guardian (@DailyGuardian1) December 16, 2024

While speaking at the Democratic National Committee's holiday party, President Joe Biden turned toward Kamala Harris and told the vice president she was "not going anywhere."

While critics may suggest that about Harris' political future, Biden intended to explain why he chose the former California senator to be his running mate four years ago.

"It's also been an incredible honor to serve with someone of immense character as she demonstrated throughout her entire career — Kamala Harris," Biden said during remarks Sunday at the event.

"I knew what I was doing when I asked her to be my vice president. She always served this country with purpose and integrity, and she always will. And you're not going anywhere, kid — because we're not going to let you go."

Er ... sure. The problem for Harris is not that Democrats will let her go, but that they won't let her run unopposed or anoint her for positions beyond her capacity. That's what Joe Biden did in making her VP, and that's what the party did by making her the nominee in July without any process whatsoever to test her ability to campaign effectively. 

Whatever office she chooses to pursue in the future, Harris will have to work for the nomination. And when Harris runs in a competitive environment, she performs poorly -- and this isn't the first time that Democrats have seen that. Harris blew a winnable 2020 presidential primary in which she was favored to be a front-runner because Harris turned out to be unable to deal with Tulsi Gabbard's tough debate tactics and melted down into word salads and weird laughter. Harris didn't even make it to a primary or caucus that cycle, for all the same reasons that she didn't win any swing states this year in the friendliest media environment possible. 

Democrats don't want to admit this publicly -- at least not yet -- but they're not going to step aside for her either, as Ashley Parker and Maeve Reston concede at the Washington Post today:

Others contend that the old traditions — including those dictating that a one-time loser is finished — no longer apply in American politics. “Since Donald Trump has rewritten the rules — the norms — I don’t believe Kamala Harris or anyone should try to go with precedent, ever,” said Donna Brazile, a Harris ally who also managed Al Gore’s unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign. “There are no rule books. Everybody can color outside the lines.”

Still, while Harris, 60, will almost certainly get a second act, a second turn as her party’s nominee could prove elusive. Even some of her allies and former campaign aides privately concede that other aspirants would not step aside for her in 2028 and are still trying to parse how much of the groundswell of support she received during her unsuccessful bid reflected affection for her rather than relief that she was not Biden.

There is zero chance that everyone will do the kind of stand-down in the Democrat primary in 2028 like they did for Biden in 2024. The biggest lesson from the series of Democrat disasters this cycle is that they made a huge error in avoiding a competitive primary against Biden, despite warnings from some such as Robert Kennedy and Dean Phillips about the risk involved. If Harris wants to run for the Democrat nomination again, she'll have to campaign for it. Who would donate to that campaign, though? Her track record even with $1.5 billion in backing is singularly lacking in any reason for confidence in her ability to compete. 

That may be just as true if Harris runs for governor in California:

By not ruling out a run for the governor’s mansion, Harris has effectively frozen the already crowded field, with heavyweights like Rep. Katie Porter (D-California) deciding whether to enter. Many California political strategists say Harris could easily clear the Democratic field and would be the favorite in her home state, where she beat Trump by 20 points in November. It could also represent another chance for a historic first; the nation has never had a Black female governor.

“I am certain that everyone will want to support Kamala Harris in continuing to serve this country,” said Porter, when asked how a Harris decision would affect her own thinking. “Given that she’s a thoughtful person, I’m certain that she too is thinking about what does that look like for her, and I want to support her in whatever comes next for her.”

Indeed, that field already looks crowded. Besides Porter, the field already includes former LA mayor and ambassador Antonio Villaraigosa, current Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, former state senate president pro tempore Toni Atkins, former state controller Betty Yee, and current state superintended of public instruction Tony Thurmond, among others. It seems almost impossible to think that Villaraigosa and Kounalakis would drop out in Harris' favor, even if Porter sounded at least open to the idea, They are not going to wait another four years, or potentially eight, which means Harris would again have to campaign and convince donors to give her money ... again.

And she's terrible at it, even with the easiest media environment ever. Even if Harris somehow ended up on the general-election ballot, her likely opponent will be another Democrat thanks to California's all-in primary system. That means she'd still have to compete against better Democrat options, negating the party's advantage for Harris in California. And again, all of the big-ticket donors will have to decide which candidate is the better investment, and they will have long memories of Harris' spending spree in this election.

"You aren't going anywhere, kid" will likely be the most accurate statement Biden has ever made.