Lloyd Doggett has had a storied career. The Democratic congressman has served in the House of Representatives since 1995, holding on to a seat that’s represented, through various redistricting processes across three decades, Austin, San Antonio, and portions of the Rio Grande Valley. Before serving in Congress, where he’s a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he spent eleven years in the Texas Senate, where he was a member of the famed “Killer Bee” quorum breakers, then served on the Texas Supreme Court from 1989 to 1994.
But he became the answer to a trivia question a little less than three weeks ago, when he became the first Democrat in Congress to call on President Joe Biden to end his 2024 campaign, expressing concern over Biden’s debate performance and suggesting that he instead “encourage a new generation of leaders.” At the time, it was a risky proclamation. Democratic officeholders were still, by and large, sticking with Biden. An incumbent president hadn’t chosen not to seek reelection since 1968. Still, Doggett became the first of a wave of Democrats from across the party’s ideological spectrum to push for Biden to pass the torch—which he did on Sunday, to the shock of the political world.
Texas Monthly caught up with Doggett by phone on Monday, while he was awaiting a floor vote on a resolution honoring the late Sheila Jackson Lee, to talk about what led him to open the floodgates, why he was reluctant to immediately support Kamala Harris’s bid to replace Biden—and why seeing the result he lobbied for doesn’t bring him joy.
Texas Monthly: You were the first congressional Democrat to say in public that it was time for Biden to get off the ticket, and now he’s off the ticket. How are you feeling about that?
Lloyd Doggett: Well, I feel very hopeful. I’m very encouraged, because we were in a race that we would lose, and now we have a fighting chance to prevail. I know that this had to be a really difficult decision for the president. I can’t say I take any joy in that, but I’m relieved, because it is so critical that we prevent Donald Trump and his gang from taking over our government and maybe never giving it back.
TM: Why were you so confident that Biden was going to lose to Trump?
LD: It’s not just the debate, though that was significant, but the fact that he has lagged behind in the polls throughout the past year, despite the fact that his opponent has all those felony charges; has been found by a judge and a jury to be responsible, essentially, for rape; and his other felony convictions. And yet, despite all those things, for some reason, President Biden still lagged behind. I thought that the debate would be the turning point that would give us the surge to begin to flip that around. What I saw was a stunning setback. The next morning, I came over here to the floor during our vote and talked to every member of our leadership, past or present, that I could find, as well as other colleagues, to tell them we need to have a different candidate on the ballot and we needed the president to step aside. When I saw that that was not happening, I decided to take that responsibility for myself, especially after talking to people in Texas when I was back that weekend. And then Monday, when the Supreme Court came out with that immunity decision, I felt more urgency to ensure that [Trump] did not get elected.
TM: You’re a longtime incumbent in a very safe district. Was it easier for you to be the first one out the gate with this than somebody who’s not?
LD: It definitely is. I was not an endangered incumbent, and I was not just starting my career and thinking about what happens to me in the future, so I was able to think about what’s going to be in the best interest of the country. And I think that hopefully opened the door, even if it was slow getting others to join. I promptly began to hear from colleagues who said that I was expressing their view also, but perhaps because they were in a very endangered seat or had other concerns about what might be happening in their district, they thought they couldn’t come out.
TM: The coalitions that lined up on each side of this, whether they were fighting for Biden to stay or urging him to go, didn’t line up the way that we’re used to seeing them. It wasn’t progressives versus centrists. Can you tell me about that from your perspective?
LD: I was not out trying to twist arms to get people to do this. I thought this is a decision that each member has to make on their own. But what I found was that this was not an ideologically based decision for people. It was a pragmatic decision about how we protect our country. And it was really surprising to see some of the people that were of the progressive caucus come out so strongly for President Biden. But I just don’t think there’s an ideological component to it. From my standpoint, it’s all about the numbers, and the numbers were not on their side.
TM: When Biden announced Sunday that he was out, you issued a statement urging an open convention. Is that still how you feel?
LD: It certainly was this time [Sunday] night. I think the preferable approach was, as I called for in my initial request to the president, back on July 2, to have him step aside and have an open, fair, democratic process to evaluate the candidate. And there were several ways to do that—say, town halls around the country with a miniprimary. I think that would give our candidate an advantage to go through that process and then have the decision made at the convention. What happened is that in twenty-four hours, vice president Harris, with the advantages that she enjoyed with President Biden’s support, was able to clear the field. I believe every person who’s ever been mentioned as a likely candidate has given her their endorsement, along with party chairs and governors and so on. If we had that kind of process now, I’m not sure that anyone other than the vice president would be participating in it. And so I think it’s inevitable that she will be our nominee. I certainly have never had any doubts about her ability to be an able nominee, but I strongly favor democracy with a small d as well as a big one. [On Monday night, Harris received commitments from enough delegates to secure the nomination.]
TM: It does seem at this point that maybe Marianne Williamson takes it to the convention, and that doesn’t seem like a real feasible challenge.
LD: It doesn’t.
TM: One of the complaints from folks on Team Biden was that the big money donors were really pushing him to get out. You certainly don’t have a reputation as a “let’s do what the donors want” sort of guy. How was it being part of a coalition that included these billionaire donors?
LD: There’s no doubt that they had some say in this. I was not in touch with donors of that magnitude. This was really, on my part, a very independent decision, after I evaluated where we stood and where we could go. But I think one of the biggest challenges in the work that I do here day in and day out is the influence of money in politics. And there’s no doubt, with everything that goes on in our system, that that plays a big role.
TM: What do you say to the people who are concerned that Biden’s decision to step down was a big money decision and not a grassroots decision?
LD: You know, Biden began saying only the elites wanted him to step down. That was not accurate, but I don’t think that was decisive. I think it was a very personal decision that must have been as incredibly difficult, under the circumstances, as President Johnson’s decision was decades ago—whether he would end a fifty-year career in this manner. No doubt the question of how much funding there would be may have been a factor, but I don’t think it was the principal one.
