By now, the world is disturbingly aware of President Biden’s shortcomings. We’ve known for years that the man is susceptible to perceptions of incompetence simply because of his age. But absent clear confirming evidence of cognitive decline, and in particular, evidence that cannot be attributed to factors like Biden’s well-known speech impediment, criticisms based on his age amounted to demographic stereotyping. That all changed after the debate.

Contrary to popular belief, Americans are not stupid. Voters know the difference between stereotypes and evidence of facts. Biden’s age is a fact. Biden’s debate performance is a fact. The idea that an 81-year-old cannot effectively serve as President of the United States is a stereotype—albeit a compelling one.

Consider: over the past twenty years, nobody has called for Warren Buffett to retire, even as the man approaches 100 years old. Why? Because he continues to demonstrate value, leadership, and above all, produce for his clients. Indeed, if Warren Buffett had run for President in 2016, at the age of 86, could he have won? Would he have won? We will never know.

On the one hand, the power of stereotypes is limited in the absence of factual evidence. On the other hand, if confirming evidence is identified, stereotypes tend to provide an after-the-fact explanation for facts suggested by evidence. It’s not that Biden can’t perform because he’s 81. It’s that Biden didn’t perform because he’s 81. The difference between the two positions upended what was already an uncertain campaign.

Today, nearly a week after Biden’s disastrous debate, many Democrats are still calling upon the President to withdraw. Publicly, administration insiders are engaged in standard damage control activities: getting Biden in front of the public in a controlled manner; issuing statements of support from high-ranking allies; deflecting criticism as performative; and generally denying that the President is currently considering a withdrawal.

Privately, you can be sure these same political professionals are engaged in a massive polling effort, both to assess the damage done by the debate and to identify any alternatives to their current path. Collection and analysis of those results may take a week or two, even assuming that the results will be expedited. Until then, Democrats will continue to publicly avoid the question.

When those results are finally in, if a more viable candidate can be identified, expect public calls for Biden to step down to dramatically increase. On the other hand, if a clear alternative can’t be identified, expect Democrats to continue to argue that Biden is and has been the right choice all along—a position that will continue to sound disingenuous to the American people.

In an obvious way, the Vice President is next-in-line, and therefore, the presumed alternative to the President. Pre-debate polling suggested that Harris was less competitive with Trump than Biden, and therefore, that she did not provide a clear alternative to Biden. In the pre-debate world, Harris made limited appearances, generally gave scripted, inauthentic-sounding speeches, and by all accounts, did not play a major or even active role in governing. While that perception had recently begun to shift, if only a little, following a series of authentic statements from Harris on the abortion issue, in general, the public’s pre-debate assessment of Harris has naturally been based on the absence of confirming evidence. Perhaps the most obvious thing anyone could say about Harris was that, whereas Trump and Biden have both already served as President, she hasn’t.

Post-debate, chaos and disruption abound…and the game has changed. The public has received clear evidence that Biden is in fact too old to perform. On the other hand, the voters have yet to receive the final word on Harris. Therein lies the opportunity: a public, energetic and authentic performance by Harris in the coming months could overwhelm current perceptions primarily based on a dearth of evidence.

Here, authenticity means embracing subjectivity over grand, dogmatic, or categorical statements. It means speaking simply, colloquially, confidently and passionately from the heart. It means acknowledging that no one person has all the answers. Most of all, it means sounding competent and unscripted at the same time. If Harris could channel that energy, could find her authentic voice and use it relentlessly over the next few months, she could win support from the millions upon millions of voters who simply don’t really know her yet.

Nikki Haley, a woman of color a generation younger than Trump, had the same opportunity, squandered it, and finally dropped out in a bid to preserve some modicum of influence in government. Part of the problem for Haley was that she simply could not withstand the vitriol inevitably poured on any rival to Trump by his cronies, sycophants and cultists within the Republican party. Harris would have to endure similar vitriol, but from the other side of the aisle—perhaps even to her benefit. Perhaps Harris’s advisors could learn something from how Haley’s failed play played out? Do Democrats have the vision to honestly assess the potential strengths of a Harris candidacy?

Unless the new polling shows a clear increase in the Vice President’s viability, based perhaps on her most recent public statements, don’t hold your breath. KPI culture runs rampant in big money organizations like the Democratic and Republican parties. As such, the perceived risks inherent in replacing the incumbent President with a poorly- or even ambiguously-polling Vice President would likely prove overwhelming absent a clear data-based path forward.

Contrast KPI culture with a couple of insights from Steve Jobs, a man widely credited with evincing visionary leadership in his space in the face of major challenges to his style and decisions. To paraphrase Jobs, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them; people don’t believe in you until you make yourself undeniable. Applying those incites requires bold action, often in the absence of clear evidence of ultimate success. Organizations assessing risk on the basis of current data often fail to capitalize on available opportunities. Apple after Jobs is a perfect example.

Put more simply, people with a lot to lose tend to avoid bold decisions. Obama had nothing to lose. Trump had nothing to lose. Biden has everything to lose….what does Harris have to lose?

Of course, Democrats could decide to skip over Harris and replace Biden with someone else. If that happens, it’s hard to imagine the new candidate seeking to replace Harris as Vice President. Doing so would signal increased chaos; keeping her in place would signal a sense of stability.

But here’s the rub: at the heart of the public’s concern over a second Biden term is the idea that, if elected, he may make bad decisions due to cognitive decline, become incapacitated, or die on the job, leaving the country in the lurch. In that context, Harris is next-in-line. And so, even if the Democrats decide to stick with Biden, more than ever before, a voter’s decision will be informed by his or her view of the person who very well may be called upon to replace him. Alternatively, if Democrats choose an unknown newcomer and keep Harris in place as Vice President, they will need all the help they can get pitching the new path over the coming weeks and months. In every likely scenario, the Democrats need to get Harris out there, make a strong showing, and make it fast.

That means, no matter who’s ultimately on the ballot, Harris must start campaigning like a candidate for President. Like, now. The alternative is to abdicate the argument and, based on current polling, the presidency.

What does that look like? It could be good…Throw out the pompous drivel historically pumped out at campaign rallies to crowds of sycophants—Harris is at her most inauthentic in those settings. Instead, imagine a world in which the political media is talking directly to Harris nearly every day, either in studio or remotely from the White House. Imagine a competent, professional adult sitting at the right hand of power making reasonable, even-handed, authentic statements on important policy matters for public consideration. Imagine Kamala Harris challenging Donald Trump to a debate. After all, who says the Vice President can’t debate a candidate for President? Imagine a new campaign slogan for the majority of Americans who feel cheated by the choice they are presented with: “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” If the Democrats were willing to fully embrace Harris, to significantly empower her, even without officially placing her at the top of the ticket, the results could be powerful.

Certainly, there’s no guarantee that Harris can deliver, and the downside risks include a Harris implosion. By most accounts, Harris is an accomplished and impressive person. So was Sarah Palin. Like Palin, Harris only has experience successfully campaigning at the top of a ticket in a very specific American community: in Palin’s case, that was rural Alaska; in Harris’s, it was urban Los Angeles. On the other hand, Harris has had the benefit of participating in a successful campaign for the Presidency, and four years to grow into a major Federal role. Would she implode like Palin, or excel? The answer may not be clear now. But compared with doing nothing, what do Democrats have to lose?

There is a silver lining for Democrats post-debate: they will be firmly in the public eye for as long as this plays out. This is a new world, a frightening world, but also an interesting world, especially in comparison to Trump’s played out, well-trodden, and frankly boring hyperbole. As such, Democrats can expect to command the nation’s attention for the near-term. The reasons they are receiving that attention may have been unanticipated and undesirable. But this is the big game, the highest level political professionals play at. How they decide to use this found attention over the coming days will fundamentally inform and determine how voters decide to vote.