One of the by-products of Joe Biden’s very probable decision to seek re-election at an advanced age is the unprecedented prominence it places on his vice-presidential running mate.

Turns out, that’s a helluva by-product.

No previous president or even major party nominee has ever sought (or resought) the office in a situation in which voters must weigh the odds on that candidate’s health, or even continued existence, if elected. That means—and it will mean in 2024—that the vice-presidential running mate will figure into voters’ calculations in a way that it never has previously, and that the veep nominee has a greater potential to help or hurt the ticket than, perhaps, ever before.

Which brings us to Kamala Harris.

While parties usually direct their fire at the other party’s presidential pick, there’s absolutely no question that the Republicans will go all out against Harris nearly as much as they will against Biden (and Hunter and transgender kids and all the rest). As a Black woman who was first elected to office by the voters of godforsaken San Francisco, Harris already has way more than three strikes against her among Republicans—not that Biden is going to get their votes no matter who his running mate will be. But does Harris have any political identity at all with swing voters, or the public at large, that could lead them to conclude she could step up to the presidency if Biden fell into an open manhole and was never seen again?

Like Lear, Harris can argue that she’s "more sinned against than sinning." In a ranking of Biden administration visibility, she’s well below Tony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Pete Buttigieg, the departed Ron Klain, and sundry others. She played no visible role in Biden’s historic legislative victories. How much of this is the administration’s fault and how much is her own deficiencies I cannot say. Her failed presidential run in 2019 (she didn’t make it to 2020) argues, however, for the deficiencies, and it’s hard to find Democratic pols or liberal activists who spring to her defense, either in general or because she played a crucial role promoting or defending a progressive cause.

That said, dropping her from the ticket would create problems of its own—and how. So, what’s a President Biden to do?

In Sunday’s New York Times, Greg Craig, who served as Barack Obama’s White House counsel, suggested that he do what Franklin Roosevelt did in 1944. In the face of widespread intraparty opposition to his sitting vice president Henry Wallace, who was considered too far left and too susceptible to woo-woo mysticism by two of the Democrats’ three major power bases—the big-city machines and the white South (the third, labor, liked him)—Roosevelt expressed a nominal preference for Wallace but made clear the choice was up to the national convention delegates, who proceeded to nominate Harry Truman. In the clear knowledge that today’s primary voters view themselves, and not convention delegates, to be the deciders, Craig suggested in effect that 2024 primary voters be permitted to vote on their vice-presidential pick.

It’s an excellent suggestion, but I don’t see how it can work. A whole series of party rules and state laws would need to be changed almost immediately, which I don’t see happening. The default solution, if solution it be, is the 1944 option. If polls show Harris to be a real drag on the ticket, the delegates may have to take matters into their own hands.

When the 1944 delegates ousted Wallace, Roosevelt gave him the consolation prize of a Cabinet post (Commerce). Biden would have to do something equivalent, or better, for Harris. Should a Supreme Court vacancy open up, that would be one option. That improbable option failing, there’s always the Cabinet, though nothing short of State might be required.

Any of these options—not least, renominating Harris—likely comes with a major political downside. Such are the by-products of seeking to stay in the Oval Office until age 86.