I remain unmoved by the liberal panic over Joe Biden's weak poll numbers. However, I keep getting asked why, so here it is:
- Right now the race is basically a tossup.
- But it's still very early. The vast majority of swing voters aren't paying attention yet—and won't until after the conventions.
- As voter attention shifts to the campaign it will hurt Trump. Historically, the more people hear from Trump, the less they like him.
- Trump has a lower ceiling than Biden. There are just too many people who flatly won't vote for him. Biden has more upside.
- Many of the people who say they won't vote for Biden will come around later in the year. As always, the prospect of a Republican winning—especially Trump—will overcome their early doubts.
- Biden hasn't even begun to campaign yet. He has a lot of money, and when the ads start running they'll hurt Trump a lot.
- Biden has an obvious problem with his physical condition, which reads as old. But his mental condition is fine. Trump, by contrast, shows signs of serious mental deterioration. This hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet, but it will.
- Trump has a big potential downside from all his trials. His MAGA fans might not care, but centrist voters do, and it could spell big problems if prosecutors are getting headlines for Trump's misdeeds when October rolls around.
So that's that. But I have two big worries. The first is that the economy might go south, though that's looking less and less likely all the time. The second is that although the race is a tossup nationally, it really does seem like Biden is weak in the battleground states that matter. I'm not sure how that will play out.
A "health event" for Biden is also a potential problem.
A health event for tDrumpf is not?
Not a problem. A health event for Trump would be good news.
Any episode of health would be such a shock to him he'd probably just die.
Be still, my heart.
Donald’s decline is accelerating as he falls into the same trap Howard Hughes, Elon Musk, and numerous other rich men have fallen into. As Donald only speaks at rallies of his true believers, and surrounds himself with ambitious sychophants, he increasing looses touch with reality, Those around him shower him with praise rather than cautioning him. Are fictitious faucets that don’t flow water and similar ephemera really the sort of thing to found a winning presidential campaign on?
+1
Given how limited the coverage of Trump's case of covid was, I'm going to say that the press would not treat a health event for Trump the same way as they would for Biden. Lloyd Austin's time in the hospital has gotten about 10X as much coverage as Trump's did.
Trump actually came much, much closer to death in office that Biden has, but no one talks about that at all. Everyone is obsessed with the possibility that Biden will die in office, even though no doctor has ever worried that he'd need to be put on a ventilator.
It's not obvious to me that Trump is showing his age more than Biden, or that Biden is "fine." I'm a bit more worried about Biden's mental deterioration, if I'm being honest.
But I also don't think it matters much. The rest of your arguments/observations seem spot on to me.
What is your evidence for thinking that Biden's mental deterioration is 'more worrisome' than Trumps? I'll match you quote for quote to the contrary.
That Biden is somewhat more senescent than Trump is not a belief I hold with high confidence. Nevertheless, I'm going to give the edge to Trump in this contest, especially since Biden does fewer interviews and speaking events and still comes across as comparably infirm.
That doesn't mean I think age has totally debilitated either candidate right now.
And no, I'd rather not spend the day juxtaposing Trump's and Biden's gaffs, solecisms, slip-ups, blunders, howlers, and general cacology. There're too many examples from which to choose!
So, no evidence will be presented for this evaluation then.
You might try getting over yourself sometime.
There was a write up in Slate (?) describing Biden's mind as aging whereas Trump's mind was dementing. Ok, it was Salon:
https://www.salon.com/2024/02/23/dr-john-gartner-on-a-tale-of-two-brains-bidens-brain-is-aging-brain-is-dementing/
Paging Dr. Demento....
By the way, that guy (a psychologist) has a petition (for "licensed medical and mental health professionals") saying that Trump has dementia. Apparently 215 signatories so far (started two days ago).
Reagan was showing signs in his first term of the Alzheimer's that ultimately killed him. Reagan had a huge squad of handlers whose job is was to keep his growing disability out of sight and to move policy forward in a coherent-ish way. It'll be the same thing no matter how bad Biden gets.
Biden will surround himself with smart competent people. If he is a step slower than before it will not have any significant effect on policy. Trump will surround himself with ambitious sycophants who will support and reinforce his pathological thinking.
I think TFG has *declined* less, because he started from such a low level. He’s been stupid his whole life.
you got that
The corporate citizens that own the national news media have obviously decided they can live with Trump, just the way German industrialists thought they could live with Hitler in 1933.
After watching Jamie Dimon's interview on CNBC at Davos it's hard to disagree. It almost sounded like Jamie was trying to make sure that JP Morgan will be treated well if the orange monster were to win. What a pathetic display of either political ignarance or shameless sucking up. .
" It almost sounded like Jamie.."
Why almost? That exactly what he was doing.
Yes, it was, and I say it was shameless sucking-up.
Trump said he would cut funding to schools with a vaccine mandate. Trump said they are purging the Republican Party of non-Trump people like Romney. Does that make the news? But Ice Cream does.
I tend to agree but I'd say many of these aren't "reasons" so much as hopes, "Many of the people who say they won't vote for Biden will come around later in the year". I hope that's true, but I'm only moderately confident. But whatever the case, it really is too late for another option to be at all realistic, so I'll stick with the hope.
On another note, when will the Biden campaign start rolling out big ad buys? Seems like it's probably about time to me.
The attacks on Trump have to peak at the right time. Publicity around his trials can de-rail criticisms--basically drown them out when they're first aired, which means they get dismissed later as "old news".
Whoa there, it's only barely March! The big ad buys and serious campaigning (and voters' attention) tends to start up late summer.
"Trump, by contrast, shows signs of serious mental deterioration. This hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet, but it will."
No, it won't. The press, for some reason, is happier to talk about "people talking about" Biden being old and faltering, rather than showing real-life instances of Trump actually faltering.
How could it not? I suspect Trump has damaged himself with (among other things) Adderal and I have every reason to believe he' self-treating that damage with -- you guessed it -- increasing amounts of more of the same. Turns out there are excellent reasons for Adderall to be a controlled substance (This is in addition to his other unhealthful health habits and his family history of dementia, of course.) But in any event, I see his mental health not only continuing to deteriorate, but doing so at a monotonically increasing rate. I fail to see how it could _not_ be kept out of the news, especially given that his condition might be the only plausible get-out-of-jail-free card he has left.
I may be alone in this, but I think trump could well be showing covid after-effects too. He had a really serious case pre-vaccine and pre- the mutations that seem to have made it less severe (he was one of the first to get the antibody treatment, iirc). Even in people who haven't had long covid, longer-term effects have been showing up in things like brain fog and dissociation that could be compounding whatever else is going on.
Good point. I'm also guessing that's he habitually refuses to follow any cognitive therapy regimems prescribed for him by a responsible physician.
Tangentially or perhaps not so tangentially, I don't know if this is a thing, but it seems the people most in need of exercise of their cognitive faculties after, say, a stroke, are exactly the ones most resitant to such a regimen.
+1
The videos of Trump's synapses misfiring are vivid and hardly covered at all. I mostly see them on Hullabaloo, not exactly the MSM.
Why is Kevin so sure they will get covered by the press?
Trump's starting to sound like a garbled recording, so there's that.
A stutter or speech impediment isn't news, unless like his, it's new.
Who else?
Seriously - who else will beat TFG?
His rabid base will show up. No one is going to peel them off or convince them to stay home.
So who?
No one.
So was this a quiet admission that there will be no more "recession coming later this year when the Fed's rate hikes start to bite" posts here?
+ 1
I think the media hasn't jumped on Trump's dementia because it's rather difficult to distinguish dementia between the normal crazy talk that Trump spews.
That, and the mandatory both siderism. If a comment is made about some demented nonsense the Defendant has spewed, there must be an equivalent smear on Biden. Like if Trump says he will drop a nuclear bomb on "Antifa," it's got to be paired with ... uh, Biden responded to a reporter while eating ice cream. AND IT WAS VANILLA!!!
See? Totally the same. Feel the outrage!
+1
Actually it isn't:
https://digbysblog.net/2024/03/03/trumps-getting-worse/
https://digbysblog.net/2024/02/24/hes-not-ok/
I read the NYT and it doesn't report this stuff.
Incumbents don't lose when the economy is this good. Period.
Like Kevin, I think Joe Biden is more likely than not to win. But it has to be said that the classic postwar patterns of US presidential politics no longer prevail in our current era. Once upon a time, an incumbent running for a second term against the backdrop of an economy like this would traditionally be looking at a landslide or near landslide. But that’s definitely not in the cards in 2024. It seems plainly the case that a robust economy is not the guarantee of a second term it used to be.
Particularly when 51% of the Times/Siena poll respondents rated the economy as 'poor'. I checked, and the cross-tabs don't break this out by income. But the numbers were 59% for no-bachelors respondents; 40% for degreed. IIRC, Kevin's charts have shown better wage gains for HS-only workers.
Well, and as Kevin has frequently pointed out, the GOP propaganda Murdochian mass media didn't get going until about 2000. It's seems telling to me that the last semi-landslide we saw was the 1996 election.
I think it's obviously better for Democrats than not this cycle that the economy is robust. Let's hope it remains that way. But yes, it seems really untenable to posit that this means Trump couldn't win. And yes, as you point out, it's not even clear a sufficiently large critical mass of persuadable voters even realizes the economy is robust.
Biden won in 2020 with 51.3% of the popular vote to 46.8% for Trump. If both are polling at 44% that's 12% in the undecided or "other" camp.
I don't believe Biden has "lost" 7.3% of his popular vote share (51.3% - 44%) since 2020 and tend to agree with Kevin that a lot of those voters were Dem leaning and will most likely vote for Biden again and provide the margin he needs to get back to 50%.
Other than the tight margins in the Rust Belt, Biden needs to keep the 3rd party vote down. It was 1.9% in 2020 which is OK, but it was 5.7% in 2016 and that was bad for Hillary.
With the electoral college, Biden needs to crack 50% to win. If Trump's ceiling is 47% which I think it is, then the only thing standing between Biden and 50% is the 3rd party vote. If Joe ends up in the 48-49% range with the 3rd party vote at 3-4%.. starts to get tight.
Depends on the third party.
Democrats are used to thinking of third-party candidates as Republican-friendly; probably due to the long shadow of Ralph Nader in 2000. But it ain't necessarily so. Yes, Jill Stein got more votes than Clinton's margin in crucial states in 2016. But Gary Johnson got three times as many votes in those same states. Ruy Texiera crunched some numbers and estimated that Trump would have won a *bigger* victory, capturing New Hampshire as well as the Midwest, if not for Johnson and Stein.
If No Labels follows through with their plan to run a fusion ticket, that's likely to be bad news for Biden. On the other hand, polls suggest that RFK Junior's third-party bid will siphon more votes from Trump. So let's hope No Labels quits grandstanding and goes back to sponsoring bipartisan legislation, and that RFK makes a splash on the right.
No Labels was reportedly hoping Joe Manchin would run, other names that have been mentioned have been Republicans — Hogan, Romney, Christie — none of them seem to be interested. We’ll see if they manage to find a candidate, but their strategy has leaked: tell lies about Pres. Biden.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/02/politics/no-labels-biden-trump/index.html
There’s a good chance of failure; ballot-access deadlines are approaching.
Ignore whatever nonsense the polls say. Since 2020 the polls have presaged a catastrophe for Democrats across the board and every single State and Special election since then when the votes mattered, it's Republicans who have struggled even in deep red states. The thing that will make Trump sink is that that he keeps braging about gutting ROE, and that, plus now IVF are the two things that will sink him like an anvil attached to his feet.
Biden has gotten more funding for climate-change mitigation than any previous Administration — Democrats need to be sure this gets through especially to younger voters, who will have otherwise have to live with the consequences of “drill, drill, drill”.
Was just about to say this too.
Breaking News!!!
Ignoring public opinion, today President Joe Biden has gotten another day older! In spite of unanimous public opinion that he's already just too darned old, he has continued to age! He may not (yet) be deaf, but he's most definitely tone deaf!!
This has been a summary of the day's Mainstream Infotainment for Monday, March 4, also known as "Army Day". As in "march forth!!"
And here I thought that quote was from the Onion, at its best.
+1
although the race is a tossup nationally
It's not. The RCP average is currently Trump +2.3%. Kevin cherry-picking a poll and declaring the race to be even is pretty bogus. Four years ago, Biden consistently led by 6 points or more, won the popular vote by 4 1/2, and barely won the election because of the electoral college.
really does seem like Biden is weak in the battleground states that matter
Yes. I don't see how Biden wins Georgia and Arizona this time, after winning them by a combined total of 25,000 votes last time. I don't see a single state that went for Trump in 2020 to go for Biden this time. So, the best case scenario for Biden is "as Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation."
The challenge then is that the Left Democrats have to allow Biden the space to pivot on their pet causes enough to fight the key electoral college battles.
National polls are not extremely useful indicators - it is the swing states and their specific demographics, not piling up extra coastal urban Left uni grad votes
Defence. Playing defence on the electoral college map
IVF and other lever points and doing those pivots on immigration etc that can win some margins in the blue collar working class votes in the swing states
Your mother called. She wants you to come upstairs and move some boxes of donations out to the garage.
Pivot from what? The reason the left of the Democratic Party is angry is because they put in the work to help get Biden elected last time even though they weren't happy about it and the Biden admin has done next to nothing on any of the left's priorities. What left issue has Biden actually pushed for with real effort? He was lukewarm on student loans, did less that half of what is needed on climate, and he's been fairly dismissive on Gaza while maintaining open air detention centers on the border.
He was lukewarm on student loans . . .
No, he wasn't. Having programs overturned by the Supreme Court is not the same thing as being lukewarm.
. . . did less that half of what is needed on climate . . .
No, Joe Manchin did less than half of what is needed on climate change. No one has yet presented any plausible way that his opposition to more robust measures could have been overcome.
The president can't just make things happen by wanting it badly enough.
. . . he's been fairly dismissive on Gaza while maintaining open air detention centers on the border.
This is at least something over which the president has control. That said, there's no evidence that a different approach would be having a greater practical effect. Ripping into Israel rhetorically might feel more emotionally satisfying, but the Obama administration demonstrated conclusively that it doesn't get results.
Israel doesn't need American munitions as badly as a lot of people think, so there's not a lot of leverage. The practical consequences of allowing the Security Council to pass a cease fire resolution is also minimal; how effective has Res. 242 been? Netanyahu very definitely would prefer for Trump to win in November, so he's perfectly comfortable telling Biden to go fuck himself and waiting ten months.
Biden decided that the only way he could have an effect on Israel's policies was to stay within the realm of what the Israel public would support. That's true no matter how deeply he believes what he's saying.
When it comes to getting aid into Gaza, like it or not, the only way that will happen in meaningful quantities is if the Israelis allow it to pass through the crossings on trucks. No one has the leverage to force them to do that. Airdrops and landing craft are fantasies when it comes to scale. Ask yourself whether or not Israel would be allowing in even as much as they have been if Biden had adopted a more hostile position.
He was lukewarm on student loans. He dithered about doing anything for a bit, then put a big warning that gave time for the Supremes to stop him even after he said he had the legal authority to act. With climate change he could have done more to limit oil and gas development. Oil and gas are at record outputs under his watch and he allowed more leases in areas that had previously not been open.
For Gaza, Gantz himself said that if the US stopped sending weapons then Israel wouldn't be able to continue fighting and we provide 92% of the weapons Israel receives from abroad. Biden's rhetoric has been dismissive and there's little actually evidence that he's had a significant impact on Israeli actions. On top of that, he rushed two arms shipments to Israel by waiving them through the normal process, causing Democratic Senators to question the move. He could, right there, have limited weapons with a plausible reason and used that as some form of leverage to get more aid into the north.
He nuked court reform before it even started, he's overseeing what is effectively a concentration camp in Jacumba while talking about shutting down the border and limiting or outright preventing asylum entries.
You responded to my specific issues here, but the larger question above was, what is the left supposed to let Biden pivot from? He hasn't actually delivered any big wins for the left and often goes out of his way to criticize the left itself. He's not in the same league as Pelosi telling Palestine protesters to go back to China, but he's in the area.
Yes. I don't see how Biden wins Georgia and Arizona this time, after winning them by a combined total of 25,000 votes last time.
Why? I reckon several hundred thousand blue staters have moved to those two states since 2020. And there are a whole lot of moderate, centrist women there who would strongly prefer to maintain access to reproductive healthcare. Many of their partners feel the same way. Those two states are hardly gimmes for Biden, but the notion that they’re unwinnable for Democrats (especially if the economy remains strong) seems far-fetched.
barely won the election because of the electoral college.
Electoral vote Biden - 306 Trump - 232
There's no "barely" there, ha ha. If you're going to troll, you really should do so with facts. Maybe talk about ice cream or something.
+ 1
Also, the basic structure of the election - economy is good, it's only the second term for the incumbent party, and so on - heavily favors Biden as well.
(That's an analysis I learned on this blog, by the way. I forget the person who came up with the model, but it's pretty darn good.)
I just checked the RCP site again, and discovered that they list battleground state polls also:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden
The results to date are:
Arizona, Trump +5.5
Nevada, Trump +7.7
Wisconsin, Trump +1.0
Michigan, Trump +3.6
Pennsylvania, Biden +0.8
Georgia, Trump +6.5
they were the least accurate of the major aggregators in 2020
I agree with everything but I would add that:
a) so long as the polls are using registered voters, their numbers will be especially skewed by participation bias.
b) opinions were baked in, 4 years ago, with very few persuadable voters remaining, leaving GOTV as the most critical part of the 2024 election.
with tight margins very few decide - of course if you want Just So Stories to avoid walking back regionally unpopular positions and counting on mere mobilisation withour persuasion....
I'm not saying that GOTV is without need of persuasion. To the contrary, GOTV would hone in on abortion rights and threats to democracy to motivate people to get out and vote.
What I'm saying specifically, is that most minds are made up, and all that's left to do is to motivate people to get up and vote.
Actually, I disagree that there are few persuadable voters. I think *many* voters change their minds based on trivia, and if they find something that would affect their lives or the lives of their families, they will react.
I think the abortion bans are a big deal. They make it hard for a woman to recover from a birth control failure. They make it very hard to get treated properly for a miscarriage. And the folks who want to ban abortion also want to start chipping away at birth control too. They'll start with IUDs and the Morning After pill, but just like with abortion, they'll keep pushing at the boundaries.
The only way to fight back is to pass laws guaranteeing the rights taken away by SCOTUS.
Do they? We believe (the data shows) political polarization is growing more extreme. That means fewer people over time are persuadable.
Actually, I disagree that there are few persuadable voters.
You're right to disagree. The "no persuadable" voters meme is a complete myth flowing from the overselling of a study a dozen or so years back. While it's true that there are fewer persuadable voters than in the first few decades after WW2—and a lot less ticket-splitting—the evidence suggests they make up something like 15-20% of the electorate. Indeed, "Obama-Trump" voters were a critical compenent of Orange Hitler's 2016 win.
Persuasion is just hugely more important that turnout. The evidence grows clearer every cycle.
Your “B” is utterly unsupported.
Only one side will actively use dirty tricks like AI deepfakes so that's a problem. Only one side will be actively aided by foreign leaders like Putin and Netanyahu so that's a problem. Only one side will be blamed for a foreign policy catastrophe, like Gaza is becoming, Ukraine may become and a war with Iran might be, so that's a problem. Only one candidate LOOKS old, so that's a problem. "It's the economy stupid" did not, I think, work in either 2016 or 2020 so that's cold comfort. In short, I am not sanguine at all.
It still really amazes me that so many people are ready to end Democracy and anoint King Trump.
👍👍👍👍👍
I would break bread with some of them so you can understanfd it better.
Maybe some of them should break bread with us once in a while too? Never heard that get said to them...
Pingback: Democrats Will Win In November - Lawyers, Guns & Money
I think a determined campaign that pushes hard on some issues could have a real effect. The issues I'd push on are:
1 -- nationwide abortion ban and ban on some contraceptives. Trump has actually said he wants one, but even if announced he changed his mind, he's simply not trustworthy. This means that care for women who miscarry will be as bad as it is in Texas today, and women will lose the right to control their own reproductive lives. And if the Republican party gets it way, it may ban all abortions. The Republicans are also likely to try to ban the morning after pill and IUD as "killing embryos," and if you think Trump will push back against them in his last term, you're nuts.
2 -- The ACA. Trump hates it, and if he succeeds in getting rid of it, also goes the protection for people with pre-existing conditions. Even employer-provided insurance doesn't have to cover pre-existing conditions.
3 -- Destroying NATO. Trump for some reason sucks up to Putin, but if we've learned anything at all from history, it's not to acquiesce to European land grabs by unpopular fascists. Putin will only get harder to stop if we don't stop him in Ukraine.
I'm at a loss as to why these ads aren't running *now*. I'd contribute now if I saw anything being run except appeals for more money.
Biden is also going to have to stop being pushed around by Netanyahu. He looks weak being ignored by an "ally" whose entire population could be dropped into Montana without anyone actually noticing.
4 -- Climate change. It is a significant issue with younger voters particularly, and there is a sharp difference between the parties.
5 -- Infrastructure: TFG blabbed about it; Joe got it done
6 -- Manufacturing: It's coming back because of legislation Biden got bipartisan support for
The New York Times has been obsessive about everyday running a negative story about Biden. But will they be able to keep ot up through November?
If I see one more headline or story state that people are unhappy/confused/surprised - take your pick - that 2024 will be a rematch
of 2020 I think I may go crazy or at least cancel my NY Times subscription.
There is nothing unusual about an incumnbent running for re-election.
In my lifetime Johnson is the only incumbent to not do so. Yes, Biden is old.
So is Trump. No, what is remarkable about this rematch is that a man who
already lost the popular election twice and who tried to overturn the second loss is the nominee from one party. THAT is the only thing that makes this "rematch" remarkable. Why is that so hard for the MSM to get through their thick heads ?
Mike Madrid astounded me about this just yesterday, in fact sounded a lot like Kevin here. He's a pollster and campaign-runner and up to now he's been a gloom-and-doomer heavily pounding the theme of how dangerous it is that Ds are losing Hispanic and Black men and how they really need to rethink their messaging.
But now he says he's seeing a big shift among educated white suburban women that's likely to move several states for Biden and Ds, including (surprisingly to me) NC.
Just wanted to throw this out there, with also a reminder that apparently something like half the people who voted in 2020 still don't believe it'll be Biden and trump again.
I’m not surprised about North Carolina. Trump barely held onto it in 2020, and a lot of the trends that are observable in states like Virginia and Georgia are happening in NC.
In 2020, after Bernie Sanders came is a close second (IA), tied for first (NH) and had a big win (NV) the Democratic party was in a panic. The other good performer, mayor and gay Pete Buttigieg was a sure general election loser. In stepped Jim Clyburn who told South Carolinians to go hard for Biden. And that got Biden a strong win after which candidates dropped out and Biden won most other states and the nomination.
That year, Biden was the "safety" candidate. Good enough to beat Trump, but without fervent supporters or mass appeal - which remains the case today and explains his tepid poll numbers.
Four years make a difference! Now his age is a huge problem, politically. There's a one in three chance he won't last until 2029. He *moves* slowly and image is a huge part of politics. Independents and low-info voters are not going to read the January Committee report, or follow the intricacies of the several trials chugging along. A big factor in 2020 was - remember? - COVID and Trump's handling of it. That's off the radar screen now.
Just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Biden's vanity prevented making a timely exit, with (likely) disastrous consequences.
...mayor and gay Pete Buttigieg was a sure general election loser.
I wonder why you say that. For one thing, he's a talented politician and was able to overperform expectations better than any other candidate that year. But generally, the past few election cycles should tell us one thing: no one has any idea who a "sure ___" is anymore.
Biden's vanity prevented making a timely exit, with (likely) disastrous consequences.
Why are you sure Biden is a loser? Polls? If you believe the polls, then you should recognize that Biden polls better than any other Dem for the general election. I think he's our best shot too, and likely to win.
Every time I have listened to Buttigieg talk I have gone away impressed. The "gay" baggage is becoming less important as more boomers die off, and he is doing a thoroughly competent job at the DoT while also sidelining as an occasional Biden Admin spokesperson. I see a presidency in his future, and will be happy to vote for him.
Yes. The Democratic Party couldn't find a better candidate than an 81 guy who didn't know better than to quit when he was ahead? And the Party rolled over and bowed down to him?
If the Party really didn't have any better candidates, then they are in fact a sad excuse for a political party. As it is, not only is Biden likely to lose, but is likely to be a drag on down-ballot candidates.
The party was complacent about Biden's age being a problem. Also, regarding better candidates, the one dynamic was that challenging Biden was also seen as a rebuke of Harris, and that would upset a large segment of the party. A new generation is out there: Shapiro, Whitmer, Beshear, along with others who might try again like Booker, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Bennet, Warren - but they weren't going to buck the Democratic party establishment. Structurally, without Biden saying no-second-term, it was near-impossible to replace him.
It's all about turnout. Will we get the Democratic turnout we got in 2020? Or will we get the turnout we got in 2016?
No, persuasion is likely to be a stronger determinant of this year‘s winner than turnout.
Not 100% on this, but I believe what made the difference for trump in 2016 (and Youngkin in VA when he ran) was rural and small-town turnout among people who hadn't been regular voters or even voted much up to that point (some for religious reasons, even). If they're still going to be there this year, we need both good turnout and switching.
Fear of the alternative is a traditional and powerful motivator, and Dobbs and IVF and voter suppression are multipliers. They need to be used smartly, and without hesitation.
In retrospect, that cognitive test Trump is so proud of "aceing?" The one you are supposed to ace unless your brain is in trouble?
Now it makes you wonder why his doctors thought he ought to take it in the first place.