I'm perplexed by the number of Democrats who continue to urge Joe Biden to drop out of the race. I mean, he's obviously not going to. For better or worse, he's the Democratic candidate. So what's the point of publicly slagging him?
Is this just a matter of stubbornness? Or being able to say "I told you so" if he loses? What's the point?
Believing your own bad press is endemic to human nature.
Most people who obsessively seek money, power, and fame are just garbage, so when you put a microphone in front them, garbage spews out.
Hope this helps, Kevin.
These are the people you hated in high school
And who is their preferred candidate that will not just beat TFG, but crush TFG so there is no debate about a "Stolen Election."
In most of the comments on WaPo and NYT articles I've read on the topic*, its the ever-popular Someone Else.
*i.e. 'Joe Biden is unpopular!!!' or 'Joe Biden is old!!!'
Generic Democrat would crush Trump. Problems only arise when s/he is replaced by a human name.
Exactly.
Not possible. No matter how decisively Trump is defeated, he will claim the election was stolen.
Democrats are incredibly fickle. Unless someone arouses you no end (Obama) a huge number of "Democrats" are quick to line up in a circular firing squad. Carter, Gore, Hillary,
PS -- no one else who was available would have beaten Tangerine Palpatine in 2020.
https://www.mattball.org/2020/04/i-am-enthusiastic-about-joe-biden.html
Because he's "America's worst president"? I don't believe that, but I read it somewhere this week. I happen to think Biden in the most consequential president of my lifetime and that 90% of the complaints about him are b.s.
I can't say I saw it coming. I thought he was both old and a lousy campaigner back in 2020, and I figured he was a longshot to win the Dem nomination. Then South Carolina happened. The race turned quickly.
Most the the inside-Dem/left beefs with Biden come down to:
a) he's old
b) his polls are weak
c) he's promoting genocide against the poor Palestinians by a country that has no right to exist
My thoughts on that:
a) he was old last time and still won, then got a lot done
b) polls are historically normal and likely to get a lot better next year
c) it's hard to take you seriously, if that's what you believe; which is not to say I think Biden's messaging has been great every step of the way, though his stance is broadly supported by the American public as a whole, and if Biden did something else re Israel it would probably have no effect on the current state of the war right now (and whatever that "something else" that the young and the left want is often contrary to longstanding US policy, fantastical thinking, or simply a shortcut to a worse outcome)
I do wonder how much of the "Biden's gotta go" b.s. we hear is funded by right-wing money or fueled by left-wing nonsense on steroids in the social media age.
I do wonder how much of the "Biden's gotta go" b.s. we hear is funded by right-wing money or fueled by left-wing nonsense on steroids in the social media age.
And Russia, and the Saudis.
Yes. I, too, doubted that "so many Democrats" were slagging Dark Brandon. It's more like a roar of propaganda from the usual right wing sources, combined with "Kamala gotta go!" Which is both nonsense as far as her abilities go, and (here's the reason!) a way to slag the working base of the Democratic Party.
Russian trolls working to amplify discord within the US never stopped...
I didn't see it coming either. He is doing a really good job.
"he's promoting genocide against the poor Palestinians by a country that has no right to exist"
A common strawman characterization of the opposition to what Isreal is doing. The fair version would be "he's unconditionally supporting, both materially and politically, a much more powerful country that is commiting war crimes against the Palestinians". Genocide is also fair but not necessary to include.
Except that Israel is not committing any war crimes. You’ve shown your true colors by lying and saying they have.
Israeli soldiers are almost certainly committing war crimes. It's a fact that not all soldiers obey, or even believe in, the laws of war. Any time there is combat on more than platoon scale, there will be war crimes. I'm not following the situation closely enough to have an opinion on whether war crimes are being committed as a matter of policy; certainly the Israeli high command has not always scrupulously followed the laws of war.
America’s worst president? That would either be Trump, who still doesn’t have a clue what a president is supposed to do, or G.W.Bush who was asleep at the switch and permitted the country’s worst terrorist attack to occur, started two unsuccessful foreign wars, and finished up by crashing the economy (although in GW’s defense, he was reportedly a good guy to have a beer with).
"although in GW’s defense, he was reportedly a good guy to have a beer with"
Which I think was the same sort of "common man" marketing nonsense that the Bush2 folks spewed (like Dubya clearing brush at that ranch he bought at the beginning of his campaign). I doubt a dry drunk is a pleasant person to have a beer with, and while I suspect an aristocrat like Bush may well be polite to you in person if you dropped by his house, after you'd left he'd probably castigate whatever crew of security and servant folks he employed for letting you in in the first place.
Imagine having a beer with DJ Princess Tiny Paws, the regular guy-ness would never end.
It is because they read the NYT. The most perverse take is that to the extent Biden loses support, it is from the left, but the professional pundits insist that this means has to pivot to "the center". It is extremely discouraging that the polls are even close in this upcoming election. On the one hand, you have Biden, and competent, experienced, knowledgeable center-right Democrat presiding over a good economy in part due to his covid relief package, and on the other hand, you have a fantastically ignorant, life long criminal who tried to overthrow the government. This shouldn't be a close call.
👍👍👍👍👍
Re: Pivot to the center. In actually, when Biden pivoted TO THE LEFT, his support increased greatly.
We all know, and many pundits are paid to deny, that the right wing and right-center will never in their wildest dreams vote "D". So don't trash your base by pandering to the trumpy-lites.
I will toss in another influence: our obsession with celebrity and optics. Biden is not a great speaker and he has been plagued with stuttering his whole life. It's one of the reasons he speaks slowly and haltingly. Every generation seems to become more and more fixated on appearance, affect, and image. It's pretty clear that's what got trump elected -- even though half the country finds him deeply obnoxious, those same qualities apparently seem magical to the other half. He's a master showman, Biden is not. And it looks like about 80 million Americans have no idea what "president" means.
He get a lot of points if he were to swap Harris out for someone who'd make a better president should he die in office.
Thanks for your comment, Just curious: who, in your opinion, would make a better president than a former CA attorney general, US senator, and current vice-president? And why?
I think we all know why.
"I'd vote for a Black woman...just not THAT Black woman!"
And likewise balance the ticket for women and people of color, the two strongest voting blocs in Democratic politics?
I'm going to wander a bit off topic riffing on your question -- which I think is an excellent one -- for a moment... I'm reminded of the 2016 Democratic Convention, when in his speech, Bill Clinton described Hillary Clinton as the most qualified candidate ever to run for President. My thought at the time: "The gentleman from Monticello would like a word..."
The "gentleman from Monticello" was an unrepentant slave owner to the end of his days. He might get elected dogcatcher in rural Mississippi these days, but that's it.
Or possibly Grand Dragon.
You get no argument out of me. The point was about qualifications, and on his resume he had ambassador (pre-Constitution), Secretary of State, and Vice President (at the time of his second run for the office), plus that bit of writing (yes, agreed, absolutely hypocritical in its most famous line) that he had done a few decades earlier. It's hard to argue that any other non-incumbent candidate was ever more qualified. If Bill Clinton had claimed "best qualified since Thomas Jefferson," it would have been a rhetorically stronger claim anyway.
Thanks! These are good points. Also, even though current generations would seem to deny it, Jefferson's inspirational and thrilling words have spoken to people world wide and across the centuries, and which the US still tries to live up to.
Bush Sr. had an impressive resume too.
Jefferson had an amazing resume and was a very strong political operator, but I don’t know that he was much of a politician— by today’s standards, he would be terrible at most of it. It’s really impossible to compare such different eras, although I’d say GHWB was probably the most qualified modern candidate, on paper at least.
Because everyone votes for the Vice President, right?
If that’s so, it would be the first time in US history that voters gave a rat’s patoot about who the VP nominee was. Getting a lot of points with pundits and a MetroCard gets you a ride on the subway.
I understand doubts about her popularity; I don’t understand doubts about her competence. Any white dude with her resume wouldn’t be questioned.
I dunno... I think John McCain may have lost votes over Sara Palin. Maybe part of the Kamala-hate is fueled by revenge for the Lefty rejection of "See Russia" Sara? They're still steamed over Robert Bork, and the guy's been dead for decades.
How’s that border crises going? She figure it out yet?
It's because some people are assertively stupid.
Half the population has an IQ under 100 and a lot of them think that their opinions are genius, and they have megaphones.
Morons with megaphones. 24/7 now.
It's Saturday afternoon so here's a knee-jerk reply based on absolutely no data: it's not that there are that many Democrats who want someone other than Biden running; it's that it's easier to read/hear the opinions of those who do what with all these newfangled, instantaneous, algorithmically driven, electronic means of communication.
Used to live not far from here,
https://twitter.com/EFischberger/status/1725954243310280794
Not brave enough for most of them to march without masks. I guess the white hoods were sold out.
And what’s the reason for all the masks on the Anti-Israel (pro Hamas) protesters? Funny I didn’t see any masks on any of the 300,000 people at the March for Israel in DC.
It's deliciously contrary! It's Courageously Going Against The Grain. It's bold Independent Thought,™ not sheep-like groupthink! It's how to show you're nobody's mouthpiece, and you're not afraid to Call It Like You See It.
Blah blah blah, etc. and so on.
It's an easy way to get attention. That's it, that's all, the end.
I feel the Dems are getting as crazy as the megats and the t-Rumpinista. Everyone wants to be heard and have an opinion. Freedom of speech, right....
What we use to think, or say under our breath, we are now shouting. Time for folks to use their small inside voices.
Democrats are scared a s*** that Trump will be re-elected, and they don't feel like now is the time to gamble. The problem is there is no safe bet:
Biden: Doing a good job & the incumbent but really old and neither loved or charismatic.
Everyone else: No one else proven at the top level.
So we are rolling the dice at a time when we don't want to roll the dice. Many think Biden is the safest bet, others think he is a sure loser. So they slag him. Simple as that.
FWIW I can't tell who is right. In my ideal world some other name brand Democrats would run on a 'Biden is fine but I can do better, time for a new generation' theme taking care to never call him senile (he's not). If Biden prevails great, the people want him. If the challenger wins, whew, glad we caught that before the general.
But no big Democrats is running, so that's that. If you want to slag anyone slag the others who aren't giving the voters a choice.
First-time commenter on the new blog here. I commented a few times on your old one, but I just registered to talk about this, because (somewhat to my chagrin) I've become "The Democrat Who Doesn't Want Joe Biden To Run Again" at my various social media homes, so I thought I might as well chime in here, too, and make the best argument I can for my position. Here goes...
First of all, none of this should be construed as support for Trump or for Republicans. Let me say it clearly: If Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him. If he's running against Trump, I will DEFINITELY vote for him. In my opinion, nobody should ever vote for Donald Trump, under any circumstances, even if the alternative is a hungry velociraptor.
However.
We are not yet in the general election. We are not even (technically) in the primary stage, and despite custom nothing in the U.S. Constitution says we *must* renominate the sitting president. According to the rules, we have an actual choice before us. Therefore if I think Joe Biden is the wrong choice, I consider now to be the time to do what I can to persuade my party to make a better one.
Anyway, I like Joe Biden. I was a Joe Biden Guy for years, he was my first choice in '08 (although I moved to Obama after he won Iowa). I even think Biden has done a pretty good job as president. I'm not thrilled about that spike in prices we saw, it does sting a bit for those of us whose income has not increased much, but I don't think much if any of it was Biden's fault. Overall I consider his tenure to have been above-average.
But he's 81 in two days. He'll be *86* by January of 2029. Not just older than any president we've ever had, but far older-- more than a decade older than anyone else! The US Presidency is not just a job, but the most difficult and stressful job in the entire world. I'm just not confident he'll be up to it five years from now, and I think we have a responsibility to nominate someone who will be.
This is a matter of principle for me, because I think one of the lessons of the Trump years is the importance of nominating someone who is unquestionably fit and qualified for the job. If the Republicans definitely aren't going to do that, that's even more reason why we should. If we reject Trump only to nominate someone else who ALSO isn't the best choice for the job, just out of loyalty (the same loyalty that led a lot conservatives to stick with the guy with the R beside his name in 2016, when they should have known he was unacceptable)... well, what have we learned?
I just think there's a limit somewhere, beyond which someone should be encouraged to retire from politics and not try to lead the free world, and I think by any reasonable standard, 86 is well beyond that limit.
But, you say, if he has a health issue and has to resign, that's what the Vice-President is for. Which is fine if the VP is an emergency contingency plan in the event of disaster, but we should not be planning for a *somewhat likely* elevation of the VP; rather, if that is the case, we should hold an open primary and let the VP run for the job herself. I think Kamala Harris would be a perfectly fine president and I would happily vote for her-- but if that's the plan, then it needs to *be the plan*. Rather, the plan right now is to rely on Joe Biden to run the race one more time, and I don't think it's a good plan.
Why not?
Well, for one thing, voters say his age is a concern, and have said this consistently for a long time. Sure, polls may not matter this far out, but not since the 19th Century have we pitted a president against a former president. Normally the polls need time to calibrate because people don't know the challenger, but *everyone* knows this challenger! Seriously, who on Earth hasn't yet decided whether they like Joe Biden or Donald Trump better? Are we sure the polls now aren't just... what the polls are, and what they're going to be?
That last point goes for the "incumbency advantage" argument too... we've never before pitted the incumbent against a guy whose party thinks he's the pseudo-incumbent! There's no guarantee Biden gets the same benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, a new nominee would start out behind in the polls, but they'd have a lot of upside. A young, vigorous candidate could make Trump look like a crazy old fossil, an approach we actually haven't tried yet, having run older candidates both times. Undecided voters seem to want a change. Left-leaning voters would rally to the nominee as the campaign went on and their name recognition increased. That's all why I'm not afraid no one but Biden is electable-- another lesson of Trump is, EVERYONE is electable if their party gets behind them! Even a sleazy unqualified con artist can win in a highly polarized environment! So make sure you nominate the best option, because with impeachment all but impossible to achieve, you won't be able to undo that choice later.
I'm also not that worried about a contentious primary splitting the party. May I remind you of 2008, when Democrats ran the most brutal, bruising primary of my lifetime, and also won the biggest landslide of my lifetime? Largely because of that experience, I'm firmly convinced the "challengers wound an incumbent president" argument confuses cause and effect. Challengers don't make an incumbent weak, in my opinion; weak incumbents get challenged.
To the extent people are still angry about recent inflation, a new candidate might actually have an easier time taking advantage of an improving economy; they might get all the benefits of representing the party that fixed things, with none of the leftover grudge from when it was "broken." It's a theory, anyway, and one I prefer to "Maybe if we give people another year, they'll completely change their minds about a bunch of factors that are already well-known."
Well, you might quibble with that last; actually most voters aren't paying attention yet. But again, we're not quibbling about obscure policy arguments here; these candidates are *unusually* well-known, and our recent bout of inflation is well-known to people who go to the grocery store. "Normie" voters care about prices a lot. They care about surface impressions like "Hey-- that one dude looks really, really old." I'm a lot more convinced those opinions will carry over to November '24 than the average, ill-considered poll answer.
In summary, yes, Donald Trump is also quite old and arguably not in his right mind. (At least I hope he isn't; some of the stuff that comes out of his mouth would be even scarier if he understood it!) In a contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, that will matter and we should all vote for Biden.
But we're not at that stage yet. We've only had 45 presidents and 59 elections. Everything we think we know about U.S. presidential elections screams "small sample size!" In this unique election with unusually high stakes, maybe we'd be justified in not just assuming things have to work the way they always have? If the best available information suggests we're headed for a disastrous Trump win, why not try something different?
Maybe I'm naive about this. I voted for Biden happily in 2020, and argued my friends should do the same. But when I did so, I kind of assumed nobody would *want* to be president at 86. That Biden would obviously be a one-term caretaker, then endorse Harris and retire to write his memoirs as a respected elder. Maybe if the Republicans had followed another precedent-- that of evicting losing presidential candidates from their role as active party leaders-- and Donald Trump was gone from the public stage, maybe Biden would have done as I assumed. I tend to think he's running because HE believes only he can win.
But I believe he's wrong. I think it's better than 50-50, as of this moment, that Biden will lose, resulting in a catastrophe beyond comprehension for our nation and the world.
I want a chance to do better. Ideally, we'd have options we could evaluate in light of the task before us. I'd prefer if Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer and Jared Polis and Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker and everybody else were in the race. It's probably a bit late for that; but it might not be too late for ONE of them, if Biden were to step aside and encourage the party to choose.
It probably won't happen. But personally, I have no real following and no fame. My endorsement is as close to meaningless as it gets, so I might as well say what I genuinely think. I might as well vote for a non-crankish challenger (i.e. not RFK or Williamson, but maybe Phillips) if I get the chance to do so in a primary. What I'd really like is for the Party to openly have the discussion, instead of dismissing valid concerns from loyal supporters like me.
I think Biden is, at present, a fine president and I respect his service. I also think both the polls and the principle suggest we're unwise to put our eggs in his basket for another four years. Unless and until we're left with a binary choice between Biden and Trump, that's what I'll continue to say.
And then, sure, I'll pull the lever for Biden. At that point, it will be the only responsible choice.
Welcome to the blog. I'll make it short. Incumbency is a real advantage and only one person has it. His name is Joe Biden. Nobody serious is getting in his way. That's because they understand how US elections work. The cranks and the fruitcakes can do what they want. They'll be roadkill after the first primary, if they last that long.
Btw, you can try to be taken seriously, or you can vote for Phillips in the primary. But you can't do both.
Konrad Adenauer, ‘der Alte’, served as Bundeskänzler until he was 87. So Joe Biden doesn’t even have a shot at ‘oldest head of government’.
US presidents are also Heads of State, a capacity in which Elizabeth II served until age 96.
Wow. Long comment. Lots of content. Welcome to Jabberwocking.
"I think one of the lessons of the Trump years is the importance of nominating someone who is unquestionably fit and qualified for the job. If the Republicans definitely aren't going to do that, that's even more reason why we should."
Strong argument!, I'm not sure I have seen it stated so clearly.
"Challengers don't make an incumbent weak, in my opinion; weak incumbents get challenged."
I agree. The examples people use (Carter, Ford) make your point. What scrambles it here is that Biden is not clearly a weak candidate: 1. No big Democrat is challenging him. 2. His approve/disapprove polling is about where other incumbents have been the past few decades, and they won. You say age, but it is clear that is unsettled.
"EVERYONE is electable if their party gets behind them!"
Wrong! 1. Republicans did not solidly get behind Trump in 2016, he won anyway. 2. Trump isn't anyone, he is a brilliant demagogue. "/ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/ a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument." (Definition included because people hate admitting Trump is brilliant anything.)
Suppose you are right: Biden has the Party behind him, therefore he is electable. Harris is fine. Why quibble? I think your main point is that Biden will lose where someone else would win.
Implied but not stated overtly: Why not let the voters decide? Then they own the decision, it wasn't made for them. Maybe you don't say this because to you his age is disqualifying. Why not let a primary settle the point?
FWIW I am agnostic on whether his age is a weakness sufficient to overwhelm his strengths. I'd prefer a primary sort that out, but big Democrats won't cooperate. None are running.
On the only occasion a replaced incumbent won the presidency the result was James Buchanan, and that because the opposition vote was split.
I don't think we can count on that now, or want it even in the event it could happen.
If you mean a part refused to nominate the incumbent president I'm guessing? In 1928 Calvin Coolidge declined to run and instead the GOP nominated Herbert Hoover who did win handily against controversial candidate Al Smith, a Catholic from NYC at a time when anti-Catholicism was high. Truman declined to run even though he could have in 1952, he would have lost and he wisely read the tea leaves as did LBJ in 1968.
People are still upset about inflation and the Republicans are the only game in town at the moment. And now everyone is talking about how Social Security has to be cut.
And now everyone is talking about how Social Security has to be cut.
Republicans, yeah. Anyone else?
These two are from Nikki Haley, who the Beltway boyz & girlz are trying to tell us has a chance of beating Trump.
“What they need to be doing is looking at entitlements. Look at Social Security. Look at Medicaid. Look at Medicare. Look at these things, and let’s actually go to the heart of what is causing government to grow, and tackle that.”
“I’ll raise the retirement age – only for younger people who are just entering the system. Americans are living 15 years longer than they were in the 1930s. If we don’t get out of the 20th century mindset, Social Security and Medicare won’t survive the first half of the 21st century."
What a political idiot. The reason the Republican Party has a Trump anchor around its collar is because it's trying to peddle political poison. Saving entitlements has been Trump's most effective counter to GOP orthodoxy and a big part of how he took over the party. Nobody wants to cut SS & Medicare, not even the GOP base. Yet for Haley and the rest of them it's all they have. Let her run on that. It won't be close.
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower
Well, why do people insist that Elon Musk is an anti-semite?
People are dumb; and people become so in love with their ideologies that they ignore everything else - facts, common sense, rational argument.
The fact that you cite is not proof that people are "dumb" or ignorant, for that matter.
Well, why do people insist that Elon Musk is an anti-semite?
Because he keeps promoting age old antisemitic tropes? This has been simple answers to stupid questions.
That NE_blue sure can write! (and a pleasure to read)
I was going to quit some important work to write on this subject by NE_blue has nailed it....except for maybe a deeply personal and visual response.
I cringe watching Mr Biden waling to any podium he has to speak at...he looks frail, weary, older than me, (and I'm older than God himself). He just moves bad and this is painful to see. (but this makes me crazy grateful for my good health).
He is not inspirational as a speaker...I literally turn him off after 2 minutes of his "breathy," speaking...
I have come to like Congressman Dean Phillips, who always lavishly praised President Biden...but then says a new generation is needed....I agree.
1st choice for me, Phil Murphy, I am even surprisingly warming up to Newsom, Whitmer, and Harris should go if Biden runs. Any of the above would make fine VP candidates.
Kevin asks, Who are these people that want someone other than Mr Biden?
Me.
Best Wishes, Traveller
I can think of several (not mutually exclusive) reasons:
1. Professional pundits feel obliged to write critically about both parties. "Democrats panic about Joe's age" is not only an easy day's work, but it's hard to find much else to criticise about him.
2. Semi-professional pundits who yearn to get their faces in the media as often as possible - ditto.
3. Stories about Biden's age are catnip to pundits who've made a career from writing "Democrats are their own worst enemies".
4. Sullen Democrats still bitter about Hillary or Bernie being robbed of their rightful victories direct their bile at Biden.
5. Liberals worried that Trump will win are preparing an argument that it's all Biden's fault for not taking their advice to step aside.
6. For some reason the Democratic Party has always attracted more than its fair share of Chicken Littles, convinced their nominee will lose and grateful for any rational argument that justifies their pessimism.
And finally, I'm convinced that a lot of the noise would stop if Biden announced that Kamala Harris had decided to spend more time with her family in 2025, and generic white male 50 year-old Democrat was replacing her as his running mate. Out of abundant caution, let me be clear I do not think he should follow that course.
Well, you had me up until the Kamala hatefest began.
It's baffling that you interpreted anything in my comment as a "Kamala hatefest". Perhaps you should read it again.
Based on observations on various comment sections including this one, the idea you were trying to express is too complex to express in text without being misinterpreted by large fraction of the readers.
Do you really think the noise would quiet if VP Harris was dumped? Oh heck no, oh heck you'll have to sleep on the couch for the rest of your life no. The noise would be deafening from the groups she capably represents, women, African Americans and Desi America.
Black, liberal, woman.
If only she were gay she'd be the quad-fecta of wingnut dismodia.
The noise about Biden's age would largely cease, because I believe a lot of the people making it are in truth expressing their horror at the idea Kamala Harris might become president some time before 2028, and thus the presumptive nominee next time around. The fact that it would be replaced by howls of protest from the sources you name would be a different problem for the party; one which no doubt explains why there is no significant public move to replace her.
Biden has been a fine president and has accomplished more with less than any president I know of. People are still anxious about the economy. People keep predicting (including yourself) a recession, and if one comes next year Biden's toast and so are we as a country.
Despite what your charts say people do have a right to be anxious about the economy, and it's not social media per se fueling it. They can see it every time they go to buy groceries. The Fed keeps raising interest rates in an attempt to cool the economy when the real driver of inflation now is corporate greed. Nothing at all is being done about that, and yet we see it everywhere with record profits in times where sales across the board are down. Is that Joe Biden's fault? If his Fed does cause a recession it will be.
Try Darrin Bell:
"It's not enough to say Biden won't call me "vermin", build massive concentration camps, imprison his opponents, seize control of all Federal agencies, purge any one disloyal to him from government, and deploy the military to silence protests. I need a reason to vote FOR Biden."
Successful comic strip artist goes Susan Sarandon. I used to like his strip a lot but it has become tiresome. Would he be saying that if he was a parole in Virginia struggling to get back the right to vote from our a-hole governor?
democrats suffering from Stockholm syndrome. News at 11.
I really couldn't care less about Biden's age. The best Democratic president ever was in a wheelchair and died in office. How many of today's Democratic politicians think FDR was a bad choice because of that? Even George Washington was chosen in part because he was old (older than average life expectancy for his time).
Biden is nowhere near as unappealing as a political figure as Minnesota's former governor Mark Dayton. He was a terrible public speaker, and the mix of back pain and depression made him about as far from a stirring speaker as you can get and still be breathing. Yet he won a second term pretty handily, and the office went to another Democrat when he finished his second term and chose not to run again. In the meantime people were pretty happy with how he ran the state. One thing was missing during his years, though: the media spent zero time at all talking about his monotonous drone, pained expressions, and stiff movements.
I honestly don't understand what Democratic politicians are doing. This is a great time to talk about having a tested and experienced duffer running the show. There is a lot of good stuff to talk about. Instead of talking about the things that Biden was able to do to improve peoples' lives, everyone is obsessing over optics and economic issues that are global. I guess if FDR were president in this environment, everyone would be complaining about high unemployment and totally forgetting about the creation of Social Security. Then they'd put Hoover back in office.
+1
"This is a great time to talk about having a tested and experienced duffer running the show. There is a lot of good stuff to talk about. Instead of talking about the things that Biden was able to do to improve peoples' lives, everyone is obsessing over optics and economic issues that are global."
Excellent!
Now, if Biden and Team could just get out there and forcefully articulate the above, much of my criticism would go away....as just being wrong.
I hope you have the ear of the White House.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Well, we may yet get it. But it's not even 2024 yet! Biden's got a lot of presidenting to do before he can drop most of his responsibilities to the nation, and go gallivanting off on the campaign trail.
His (obvious) competitor doesn't have anything going other than court dates.
Timing is important. Biden doesn't have to win the primaries, he has no serious opposition. The time to start pushing the "Biden is great" messages is just long enough before the general election to have Biden's popularity peak about when early voting starts and hold until election day. His popularity RIGHT NOW doesn't matter.
Figuring out exactly when the advertising/messaging blitz should start and what its content should be I leave to the skilled political operatives.
Joe Biden exhibits actual mastery of the political system, both foreign and domestic, and there has been virtually no one alive or dead can say the same.
Four years ago Biden displayed his dismissive intransigence to voters concerns about a myriad of issues throughout the Iowa primary campaign, which is why Biden came in fourth. Since Biden has been president, his dismissiveness has worsened and so has his stubbornness.
If nothing else changes (i.e. health or catastrophic event) then I believe Joe Biden is in very good shape to win re-election.
A lot of people, especially a lot of Democrats, thought Harry Truman was, as Clare Booth Luce said "a gone goose" and the polls at the time definitely showed it. Not only that, the Democratic Party split into three with Strom Thurmond on one side and Henry Wallace on the other also running for President. Well Harry kind of proved them wrong didn't he? By staying in the center and focusing himself on attacking what was still a weak Republican Party after 16 years of the New Deal, he managed to win a solid majority both electorally and the popular vote.
There's no reason Biden cannot do the same and the fact the opposition to him is splintering, not uniting, helps him repeat Truman's comeback. Leftist sectarianism will kill any threat from his Left (a Leftist primary challenger would have been a threat but none (serious) has arisen and Dean Phillips is basically a McCarthy-esq white liberal from Minnesota who runs as though he has blinders on to the rest of the country. The Republicans are almost certain to nominate someone just as old as Biden is who is spouting the most incendiary rhetoric and planning an almost Fascist-like government for his second term. Oh, did I also mention he might be in jail by Nov. 2024, much less in a courtroom throughout next year.
I think most voters, a majority of them occupy a sensible center and I think they'll respond to Biden because of this as they did four years ago and as they did to Truman in '48
The center isn't what you think. The center is where Biden is currently.
The question I have for both parties, assuming Trump gets the R nomination, is this:
Both candidates are old. They are both in the age group where health catastrophes are well known to happen without warning. If your chosen candidate, either Biden or Trump, suffers a health catastrophe and is dead or disabled by the time you formally choose your nominee but after most of the primaries are completed, who gets the nomination? Worse yet, if your candidate dies between nomination and election day, what then?
"Both candidates are old."
One of them wants toe liminate democracy in the us, the other doesn't. Anybody that doesn't consider that first doesn't do rational thinking anyway.
Those are valid considerations in deciding who to vote for. However, my question pertains to the (presently hypothetical) situation in which one of them is not available to vote for.
Electors at the party convention would no longer be bound to a candidate who had withdrawn before the nomination for any reason including death. They would therefore be free to vote for whomever they chose.
I frankly have no idea what would happen in your second situation, especially if ballot papers had already been printed and early voting had begun in some states.
Since, technically, we vote for electors, not the president. Those electors would be voting for whoever they want. Since the electors are partisans they will likely vote for an alternative candidate from their party with the vice presidential nominee being the obvious, but not required choice.
"Disabled" is the more difficult situation. If, for instance, one of the candidates has a stroke the day after the last primary concludes and is left comatose and unable to withdraw, are his delegates still bound to vote for him at the convention?
As has been increasingly apparent for decades conservatives will have no conversation with anyone that isn't limited to fuck you,
'We’re Christians, and we can look past that': Iowa 'relishes' in Trump 'vulgarities',
https://www.rawstory.com/iowa-republicans-embrace-trump-insults/