U.S Rep. Lloyd Doggett took a political risk by calling on Biden to step aside. It worked.

Editor's note: This interview has been minimally edited for length and clarity.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin sent a shockwave through Capitol Hill when he became the first Democrat in Congress to call on President Joe Biden to withdraw from the presidential race after his poor debate performance against Donald Trump.

As it turned out, Doggett opened the floodgates. Over the course of three weeks, three dozen other Democrats — including Rep. Marc Veasey of Fort Worth — issued similar calls asking Biden to step aside, fearing he could not defeat Trump in November. It was a risk, but one that Doggett says ultimately paid off. On Sunday, Biden took the historic step of announcing he would not run and instead was endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris.

Immediately, Doggett made himself an outlier in his party again. As Democrats quickly rallied behind Harris, Doggett called for an open convention to entertain other candidates at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

This time, he didn’t get his way, as no other candidates emerged. Harris now has the backing of enough delegates to give her the nomination. Doggett says the vice president has his full support — though he still thinks a contested convention would have been the better option.

Doggett, 77, who has spent three decades in Congress, spoke with The Texas Tribune about his role in the recent chain of historic events and his feelings about where the party goes from here.

You were the first member of Congress to publicly call on President Joe Biden to withdraw after the debate. Tell us about what led to that decision to jump out there first.

I've been concerned for some time that despite the fact that President [Donald] Trump has a criminal record and has engaged in so much other wrongdoing, that President Biden lagged behind him and did not appear to be closing the gap. I had great hope for the debate, that it would provide the surge that we have lacked. Instead, it was a major setback.

The next morning, I contacted multiple members of our leadership, past and present, and other colleagues, urging them to join in seeking a replacement. And when I saw no one taking action, I called the White House and advised that I'd like to speak directly with the president to encourage him respectfully to step aside. I got no call back and decided on Tuesday [July 2] that I should move forward. I notified our leadership that I was doing so.

I am pleased that, though it took almost three weeks to occur, the president made the difficult decision to step aside. I think we were on a path to defeat. Now there is a new spirit and hope that we've got a fighting chance to defeat Trump.

At that point, did you have any sense that over 30 other members would eventually follow your lead?

I had a sense that the recognition of the failure of the debate and the need for a replacement was widespread, but it was far from certain whether many people would come forward and say it. It does involve some risk — for someone who's in a closely contested race, for someone who's expecting additional federal assistance, or perhaps someone who's concerned principally about their future political career — to take this action. So I knew that it would be difficult for people to act.

I'm pleased that as many did eventually join. I wish that we had had more people who were willing to speak out on the need for replacement, as quickly as they joined the vice president when she announced she was that replacement.

What were the private reactions from fellow members of Congress?

I think it was almost all positive, mostly from people saying that they'd like to express the same view but for one reason or another felt they could not.

I did not go out and try to twist arms or encourage people to take a position at the beginning. I think there were a couple of questionable social media posts, but no one from the leadership nor my colleagues discouraged me from what I was doing.

What had your relationship been with the president before the debate? How often had you sort of seen him, either in private or in public?

The vast majority of contact with the White House is through the president's aides. I don't believe he has been here in the Capitol to make a personal contact with our caucus or with us as individuals in some time.

I've seen him at social gatherings, but I've never detected the kind of performance or limitations that he had the night of the debate.

My wife did indicate she was concerned about the way he handled the White House picnic this year. And I've heard similar comments from some other colleagues, but they were not an indication of a deep problem.

Have you heard at all from the White House since your call for him to step aside?

I have not.

Do you worry that this whole ordeal has hurt your relationship with the White House or with President Biden?

I understand that my call was not something that they wished to hear, but I have tried to be respectful and appreciative of the president in my initial statement, in my subsequent statement that I issued last week, and in every comment that I've made regarding his work and his need to make this difficult decision.

But I knew at the time that the call, as indicated by the fact that it wasn't returned, was not one that was welcome news at the White House.

Are you planning on appearing with the president on Monday when he visits the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, in your home district?

I have no objection to being with him and applauding his work, but I have not been invited to that event as of now.

You called for an open convention but also said that you would wholeheartedly support Harris, who is now a shoe-in for the nomination. What did you see as the advantages of having a more open process?

I urged a fair, open and democratic process to select a replacement as our nominee. That would have been the preferable course. I think that if we had a timely announcement that the president was stepping aside, we could have begun the process, whether through town halls or regional primaries, of permitting several candidates to offer their views as to why they had the program that would be most likely to overcome Trump's lead.

To her credit, Vice President Harris managed to win over, within less than 24 hours, every person who was mentioned as a prospective candidate. I have nothing but praise for the vice president. And so I formally announced that I would be supporting her. While I think she would have benefited from the process I originally described, it no longer could be accomplished.

Now, how do you feel about her chances in November? Do you worry that Harris and Democrats have too short a runway to make their case to the nation?

I'm very encouraged by the initial response of over $100 million raised, and endorsements from across the country to some extent satisfied my concern about her acceptance around the country. And again, I think the preferable approach was the one I advanced initially. But seeing delegations, including the Texas delegation, embrace her quickly does provide some indication of the level of her support among Democrats around the country.

I believe that it's an uphill struggle. I think we've got a fighting chance, but it will take all of us pulling together in a maximum effort to explain to Americans what is at stake in this election, the difference between an abortion ban, a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, termination of our efforts to address the climate crisis, and most importantly, just the suppression of our freedoms by Trump, who admires authoritarians and has made clear through Project 2025 that his extremists want to control almost every aspect of our life and abandon the democracy that has served our country so well.

Who would you like to see as the nominee for vice president?

The person who could give us the most advantage in winning those battleground states and defeating Trump.

I have no particular individual that I like more than another. I think it's a matter of evaluating it on that overriding concern. Certainly, I would want to be sure that anyone on the ticket was as committed as I am to [reproductive] choice, to our public schools, to combating the climate crisis and abroad, supporting Ukraine. But the main consideration is, do they help us win?

How much did Biden’s age play a role in your decision to ask him to step aside? What would you say to people who are pointing out your own age? (Biden is 81. Doggett is 77.)

It was the lagging in the polls for over a year, and falling further behind, that was the overriding consideration. I was never concerned about [Biden’s] age. I was concerned about the condition that he is in, as reflected in the debate, and thereafter.

We have Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and any number of very vigorous people, some of whom are older than the president, but he did not display similar vigor.

As to those people who pointed to my age, I would say that it was a strength in this particular decision to make my announcement, because I'm clearly not starting my career. It was a comment made by people who were either not my allies on other issues, or who felt a very deep personal commitment to the president and weren't looking at the numbers that were out there.

Fortunately, the president took a look at the same numbers I was looking at and other commentators were and realized that he did not have a path forward, and I admired him greatly for making the kind of decision that President [Lyndon Baines] Johnson did under other circumstances. Certainly, if at any point I felt that I had the type of limitations that he displayed, I would not want to serve in this office. I've said for years that I don't plan to pass away in this office or to stay as long as some colleagues who I've seen who stayed too long, but I'm looking forward to being on the ballot in November. I get a contract for this job two years at a time, and I am enthusiastic about the next Congress and a Democratic majority under President Kamala Harris.

Disclosure: LBJ Presidential Library has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here .

This article originally appeared in the Texas Tribune .

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.