While you're right, I don't think that's a weakness that is unique to Trump in the world of presidential politics. I'd say, in recent years, Obama, Romney, and McCain seemed to be real men who were aware of their strengths and weaknesses.
I'd say Trump, Biden, H Clinton, etc, all appear to share that particular delightful foible. Although admittedly, Trump leans in to it with aplomb.
It's not like the Democratic Party isn't allowing folks to challenge Biden. The reality is that any serious challenger to Biden has read the writing on the wall and opted not to bother with a challenge.
If anything, this thinking has more or less been validated based on what's happened on the Republican side. DeSantis looked like he could be a serious challenger, but it turns out he's too far to the right and/or too short and/or has too unlikeable of a personality.
Answer: it was the Democratic leadership and top donors (high level elites) that told potential serious candidates to stay out. It was certainly not rank-and-file Democrat voters, who polling shows want alternatives to Biden.
Democratic voters might want "an" alternative, but they don't have a SPECIFIC alternative they agree on. Some just want a younger moderate. Others, like me, want someone who lacks Biden's deference for the status quo. Others want a woman, or a particular racial minority, or a left-libertarian.
Democrats are a big-tent party with *at least* five major camps (economic progressives, social progressives, black voters, left-libertarians, and anti-Trump moderates, though some of those groups overlap) and those camps don't agree on a whole lot other than being tepid on Biden and thinking Donald Trump is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse.
As mentioned in the previous post's comment thread: generic anything polls well. But there's not a *specific* challenger who appears well-positioned to unseat Biden.
Democrats say they are interested in an alternative, but the reality is that most Democrats like Biden and would support him in a primary. Personally I am frustrated that Democrats are stuck with him, but that's due to the weakness of the parties, not some grand conspiracy.
Whether Biden is perceived as sensible doesn’t matter. What matters is competence, which is sorely lacking in this administration. The economy is teetering on the brink, our adversaries are emboldened, crime is on the rise, our southern border is a mess. What are they doing to solve any of these and other “kitchen tables” issues? Biden is one major health event from leaving office. The fact that many folks can’t see this is almost unbelievable. They have obviously been drinking too much Kool-aid.
Retire and then what? Also, what exactly has Biden done that makes you go, "oh, man, the old man has lost it"? Name something, please.
The problem that you've got here is that you - and plenty of others - cannot identify the path to a new nominee...and you're shouting about some kind of weakness that doesn't match his actions.
I hate to click like but if one believes, as I do, that these Republicans are different and dangerous, the worst thing to happen is anything that normalizes their behavior. Because that is exactly how the unthinkable becomes thinkable, how 'crazy' becomes the default. That ought to be Democrats' biggest concern, and it's not clear it argues in favor of keeping Biden, and there's a decent case to be made it does not.
I think we're reading too much into the current polling. We'll have to wait until the campaigns begin in earnest before we have a real idea of people's opinions. We don't know how much about what answers are just reflections of disliking Biden vs. substantive support that can weather additional scrutiny on the road.
It can depend on whether one is talking policy or procedure. Leading an insurrection against the government and being a defendant in multiple criminal and civil cases is still, I think, outside the mainstream for voters in the middle. On policy though, Trump is good at getting people to think he's whatever they want him to be. Some people act like he's pro-choice, even though he appointed all the federal judges who are against that right. He mentioned once I think that Scotland was happy with single payer health care, so people can think he's in favor of a national system of universal coverage. The only major policy Republicans passed with legislation while he was president was a big corporate tax cut, so there's not a lot to go on there. It's most sensible to me to ignore everything Trump says, and instead watch what Republicans do, but Democrats can't count on that from the voters.
RCP's averages always slant right and they include insider polls. Not great methodology.
That said, this doesn't mean squat in terms of a horserace. "I'm down 1 point on the average 1 year out, so I'm retiring to give the reins over to [waves hands]."
Because "the party decides" only applies to shifting endorsements for or against low probability candidates and incumbent presidents have massive influence on what the party decides.
I loath both Biden and Trump, but if they are just replaced with another Zionist corporatist pushing us towards WWIII that is no up grade, the real question is why does the system keep giving us Zionist corporatist when that is not what ordinary people want? And then the establishment wonders why a majority don't vote. Why would they when they aren't getting any representation?
I’m a student who has recently come back from a solo trip to front line Ukraine. I’ve just published a new piece on my experiences and thought readers here may appreciate it. Please do see what you think. https://irongoose.substack.com/
Biden might be more acceptable if he were to dump Kamala Harris and replace her with someone who inspires confidence that he/she could actually step in and do a credible job. Kackling Kamala only had 1 - 2% polling when she dropped out even before the first primary and she was clearly picked solely for her race and sex.
Exactly. And assuage some republican fear about the election. I'm a conservative and if I knew Joe would take over rather than Kamala, I'd be a lot less riled up about the election. I disagree with Joe on a lot of things, but I feel like he's a reasonable actor. I think Joe Manchin would take the urgency out of the election for conservatives who are not Trump ride-or-dies.
It would not bring "a lot" of Republicans over. The really aren't that many swing voters, and Manchin is not really the swing voter catnip some commenters pretend he is. His results in West Virginia are obviously impressive given the state's deep red nature, but his father, uncle, and grandfather were all West Virginia politicians, and it's a fairly unique and non-representative population. Adding Manchin to the ticket would make Biden do ~10% better in West Virginia (while still losing) without helping him at all in the actual battlegrounds, like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Manchin has all of Biden's same electoral liabilities (old white guy, career politician, out of touch, not progressive enough, no new ideas/business as usual, etc) without any real upside. The voters Biden needs to convince to win are the educated, suburban voters in places like Georgia and Pennsylvania who used to be a solid Republican base but don't like Trump. Those voters don't really know or care about Joe Manchin. The only Republicans who Manchin has sway with are West Virginia coal miners, and they could not possibly be any less relevant to the outcome of a US presidential election.
I don't think being an old white guy who isn't progressive enough and is fairly "business as usual" is actually an electoral liability in a general election. I think educated, suburban voters are the prime audience for that kind of candidate.
It's true that Biden's business as usual thing plays with some voters, but it is also a liability with parts (important parts) of the Democratic base. A good VP pick is supposed to shore up some of the weaknesses of the candidate, not double down on them. Manchin doesn't offer any advantages that Biden himself doesn't already enjoy, and he comes with all the same weaknesses. If Manchin were actually capable of peeling off significant Republican support nationally, he would be an asset, but Manchin is popular with West Virginians, not Republicans nationally.
Look at the recent VP picks of election winners - Trump picked a relatively Bush-esque, mainstream Republican appeal to voters who were wary of his scandals and general insanity. Obama picked an old white guy with an established record to appeal to voters who were worried about electing a junior congressman with limited experience. Biden picked Kamala Harris to appeal to voters who were worried about his age.
I don't think you need to worry too much about turning out the progressive base- I think Trump will do that all on his own. Is there a possibility some progressive voters stay home because they feel betrayed? Possibly, but my best guess is the vast majority will still turn out to vote against Trump.
I think the VP choices you selected tell you more about how they were meant to calm down swing voters than the base. Trump was very popular with the base who liked that he was insane, Pence gave a sense of normalcy to the suburbs. The democratic base loved Obama, Biden was meant to help with old racist people who might have voted Republican. Here we see they were both used to appeal to swing voters, not the base and that's what all VP picks should be doing.
An old cis male white christian and his hand-picked airhead female POC VP. We also got his hand-picked airhead female SCOTUS Justice who doesn't know what a female is.
Biden was not an acceptable presidential candidate in 1988 or 2008. It was only after serving with Obama that voters decided he was acceptable, at least black voters.
Everytime a woman becomes more powerful her popularity tanks . KH was magnificent in the Senate but as soon as she was made VP the misogyny knives came out.
Sandra, please clue us in on exactly what she accomplished in the Senate. What bills did she author that actually passed the Senate?
Also, you are ignoring her time as AG in California - Tulsi Gabbard ripped her to shreds over her record of corruption. She ended up dropping out before the first primary took place having only 1 - 2% polling, so again, what has she accomplished that we should look favorably on?
I have a low opinion of Tulsi Gabbard so fuck her. She's as right wing as the GOP. Throwing slings during candidate debates is par for the course. KH performed well as an attorney despite TG slanders. As for bills, feck all of them get passed in Congress since it has a stalemate existence, but she passed the anti lynching bill, legislated to preserve Historically Black Colleges and Universities and assistance to low income communities during pandemic. Her ability in committees was what impressed me and her advocacy for women's rights, healthcare, immigrants, criminal justice reform, early childhood education etc.
My best guess is it's people who think that Biden > Trump > Kamala, but also think Biden is in his 80s and won't last for another full term so realistically a vote for him is a vote for his VP.
I do not foresee a Trump supporter voting for Biden no matter who the running mate is, but I do foresee dejected Democrats and Never Trumpers staying home.
For myself, I will not vote for Trump or Biden. However, staying home expresses only apathy. If they are the nominees, and at this point it certainly seems likely, then I will vote for RFK, Jr. so that I can flip the bird at both parties and actively tell them that their nominees are unacceptable.
"I do not foresee a Trump supporter voting for Biden no matter who the running mate is, but I do foresee dejected Democrats and Never Trumpers staying home. "
It's just so hard for to me to imagine the voter who is going to change their vote (or whether to vote) based on who Biden's running mate is.
I think most people believe that if Biden is at the top of the ticket, he won't last long, therefore, his running mate is the real top of the ticket. Democrat partisans will "Vote Blue No Matter Who" (maybe the most mindless mantra I've ever heard) and Republican partisans will do the Red equivalent, but IMHO, the running mate will matter very much to any truly independent voter.
Normally true, but now the presidential candidate is 80 and has started shuffling instead of walking. But if Trump is the candidate Biden goes against then it won't matter who the VP is because the hate for Trump is so strong among so many that they would take Biden and a recently released narcotics dealer over Trump.
Carolyn, please clue us in on exactly what Kamala accomplished in the Senate. What bills did she author that actually passed the Senate?
Also, you are ignoring her time as AG in California - Tulsi Gabbard ripped her to shreds over her record of corruption. She ended up dropping out before the first primary took place having only 1 - 2% polling, so again, what has she accomplished that we should look favorably on?
Curiously, this seems to be one election where the choice of VP might actually matter. Maybe it’s the ages of the two obvious nominees. Trump could seal the deal with a competent female. Or he could nominate another Pence and gain nothing versus Harris, who has to be one of the easiest marks in history. Either way, there’s a good chance we might see the VP elevated to the presidency, and if Trump can’t win that one, he doesn’t deserve the office.
Everytime a woman becomes more powerful her popularity tanks . KH was magnificent in the Senate but as soon as she was made VP the misogyny knives came out.
Not by that name, but this is genuinely a fantastic political process simulator. Make your candidate, figure out your campaign strategy, run the numbers, govern and then run again! Not the flashiest looking game but for the simulation, there's few better out there.
Nice column, but you simply dip your toe in the water without examining the real question. What evidence is there that Biden’s age has caused him to make mistakes, to fail to act, to use poor judgment either short or long term ?
I would say none and your James Polk closer indicates that you probably agree.
Campaigning is only the prelude to governing. I don’t see any indication that Biden has governed poorly. Criticism of Biden has consisted of GOP smears and media cosmetology. There is no chorus of agreement that he has done anything that a center-left Democrat president would do wrong or foolishly. In fact he has done a decent better than decent job. Much better than his obese senescent narcissist opponent did or would do again.
Biden's propensity to gaffe and his age are plausible reasons to limit public appearances, making it hard to interpret the data. Especially as gaffes trigger age concerns, even if they are unrelated.
Is there any better and available data to answer the question?
I'd vote for looking at public appearances or public appearance minutes across Biden's term and see if there's a decline, but it would have to be compared to previous presidents as there could be a seasonality to these.
I broadly agree with the concerns. My only nit is I’m not sure the activity level of Trump as incumbent President is a fair comparison. Does anyone really believe he was actively engaged in governing at the same time as campaigning? I’m fairly certain he prioritized rallies and whatever he felt like over governing.
I think you're right, but I think this is also standard opinion of the other party. I remember thinking it was crazy how much time Obama was spending on the campaign trail during his reelection.
They're probably all guilty of over-emphasizing the election and we're all guilty of assigning more blame to the other guy and more grace to ours.
Since "Generic Democrat" will not be running, in order to beat a former president who has strong popular support, it would be necessary to find an actual person who has (1) national name recognition, (2) immediate credibility as someone with a well-recognized, proven track record of governing, and negotiating with both foreign and domestic political leaders, and (3) a well-known record of assembling coalitions among multiple highly contentious parties to achieve both meaningful legislation and effective international action. Mr. or Ms. "Congeniality with Strong Home State Support" will not cut it. I frankly don't believe such a person exists. I don't believe a Rose Garden campaign would be a worse bet than suddenly and desperately trying to find and promote a non-existent person. Polis, Pritzker, Whitmer et al. may be viable down the road, but right now against Trump? Who would be willing to take that bet? What odds would you give?
Agree. People forget the Obama neglect set the democratic bench back until 2028. There's not enough time to develop someone for Nov 2024 not named biden. That argument is true today and was true on Jan 20 2021 as well
I understand concerns about age and effective campaigning, etc. But take a step back. In no other universe would we expect the incumbent to walk away or be a significant underdog a year out from the election; Biden won by 7 million votes in 2020, BEFORE Jan 6 or Dobbs, or Trump's criminal trials, etc. So the idea that he's going to lose enough of those votes to lose the election is hard to believe; As mentioned in the article, Trump had a more prolific campaign schedule, but still lost in 2020. So is this really as big a deal as it seems....it needs to be noted that his rallys - which have a few thousand people hooting and hollering - don't translate into votes any more than a large Twitter/X presence does. Biden's the obvious candidate. And yes, he's old. And yes, people will be concerned about his age. Does this mean people won't vote for him? No.
While Biden won by a substantial amount in the popular vote, his margin of victory was incredibly narrow in the tipping point state (Wisconsin), only winning by 20,000 votes. If he had also lost Arizona (10,000 vote margin) and Georgia (11,000), Biden would have come short of a win in the electoral college. We were very, very close to a Trump victory in 2020
I do understand that, but again, this was all pre Jan 6, Dobbs, Trump's criminal indictments/trials, etc. I know there's a possibility Trump wins, and Dems need to constantly fight and scrape, but I don't think the age and concerns about age is going to be a significant factor (barring some age-related stumble a la McConnell, which is really what the age concern is all about).
It's not clear that Trump's scandals are hindering him. He's currently running away with the GOP primary. Dobbs *can* help Dems, I think, as a turnout engine. But to Derek Tank's point, Biden's 7 million vote margin doesn't matter as much as the 40,000 votes that ultimately determined the presidency.
I'm not taking these polls too seriously. First, they are always skewed against the incumbent this far out from the election, and especially will be now coming off high levels of inflation and low consumer confidence, which are both likely to improve over the next year. Second, recent polls have been shown to have more bias toward Republicans, since they overcompensated in their methodology to account for the previous Democrat bias. Third, the idea that Biden has had a 20-30 point swing among any demographic in a 3 year period is just unheard of and laughable.
Guys like Silver, Carville and Wasserman (namely professional political analysyts) are taking the polls seriously. That's kind of the justification for this article.
I mean this whole article is a big "I don't know" from Nate. Nate himself says the polls aren't really justification for much without more inside knowledge. All we can look at is the decisions that people with inside knowledge are making, which is Biden running for re-election.
I voted for Biden in 2020, but I'm not voting for him next year. And I know others who are similar to me. I don't think he's capable of doing the job well anymore, much less four years from now. Trump is awful and unfit for office, but Biden is unfit too in a different way, and people forget we have the option to simply not vote for either one of them
Respectfully, I think you might change your mind come 2024, when you're faced with the real choice between Joe Biden and a man who has already tried to overthrow an election and install himself unconstitutionally in the White House, is currently calling his political rivals "vermin", and planning to round up millions of humans and put them into "camps". You'll have to ask yourself if you're willing to personally increase the chances of a national nightmare occurring from which we may never wake up.
Respectfully, I can do without the condescension from you and others in this thread, as I'm quite aware of what the "real choice" is. Yes, I know Trump is awful. I said it myself in my first comment, and you don't have to remind me. But none of Trump's awfulness changes the fact that Biden is unfit as well. I don't want to vote for whatever anonymous group of handlers is running things for Biden and writing his remarks on the Teleprompter for the next four years. If you're claiming that the only two options are between an 80+ year old clearly deteriorating before our eyes and a national nightmare, then why did the Democratic Party foist Biden on us without so much as a single primary debate? If Biden loses, and I think he will, this is on *them*, not voters who are fed up with "lesser of two evils" garbage
No, it will always be on the voters. The parties are run by the voters. If you don't like how the Democratic Party does business, you can join its ranks and try to change it from within. But if you're faced with the choice of Biden v Trump in 2024 and you really don't vote for Biden or his "handlers" for that matter, and Trump wins, you'll have to live with that the rest of your life and rationalize to yourself and others why you helped allow it to happen.
The people running the parties are different and very far-removed from the "voters". I've been a Democratic Party member for decades, worked for them and volunteered at the local level, and trust me, nobody asked my opinion on any of this. Tbh I'm a lot less able to rationalize voting for a lesser of two evils than I am not voting for any evil at all. And if the biggest problem I have afterwards are hyperbolic mean girl comments about how I brought about the End Of The World, then I can live with that
It’s interesting because I wonder if men feel like they have less to lose with Trump in office, because their rights are not being taken away.
I know that my rights as a person of color and as a woman are at risk if the U.S. does not sustain its democracy. Black women are often the first to feel the suffering.
I can’t change your mind, but I’m 33 (a millennial) and will be voting for Biden. In doing so, I’m not just voting for him, but the entire Democratic Party.
Men will truly never understand what women go through. The kind of hatred that the republicans have against women -- there are no words. It’s cruel and repulsive. They’re going beyond abortion and want to go after contraceptives. So many men don’t understand how contraceptive are used as pain management for dysmenorrhea (often characterized by extremely painful and heavy periods).
It brings me to tears to know that there are people out there that are just like - “who gives a fuck about women” I’m not voting for Biden.
By electing Biden, my hope is that democrats can continue to protect women and LGBT people from the monstrous bills and laws that republicans have in mind.
I know that these are things that you don’t care about since you are comfortable staying home. But this election is about so much more than age for me. I’m actually afraid for my own wellbeing and that of my friends and family.
I hope so, but we shouldn't just assume it, and that's why people are asking whether or not running Biden is the best way to stop that scenario from happening.
If you can't see that staying home is a vote for Trump, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe just do that and live with your choices. Either way, please move on from any further discussion on the topic because it isn't a serious viewpoint.
Lol, I was in a thread with right-wing guys a few weeks ago who told me not voting was a vote for *Biden*. I wish all you serious people could make up your minds!
In a first past the post system, "not voting" is akin to voting for the guy who is least similar to your own ideals. Basically not voting helps whoever you dislike most, since you would ostensibly vote for the candidate you like the most if you did vote. So unless you dislike both trump and biden equally, then you really are doing yourself a disservice by not voting.
Back in electoral reality though, if you don't live in a swing state then your presidential vote doesn't matter anyway. Murica.
Hm well, "like" is a loaded term there, as it's not about likability but about fitness for the job. I do live in a swing state, and I happen to think both guys are equally unfit (albeit in different ways). I guess you can say I "dislike" both of their capacities to be a good president equally, but it has nothing to do with, say, whether I want to have a beer with either one of them
A Trump-Biden rerun would almost certainly be decided on the basis of which candidate alarmed the public more. And that is not normal, so it strikes me as unreliable to predict based on normal benchmarks.
My guess is that active campaigning will mean little, because the goal of that is to get people to vote FOR you. But this time, the vast majority of the people will be voting AGAINST someone.
Again, just a guess, but I'm thinking that a whole lot of people expressing disapproval of Biden are saying this in the hope they can get someone younger or more progressive. Not that they won't vote for whoever runs against Trump. Including Biden.
There will be months of criminal trials during this campaign, and I suspect that that (and the spin of that) will be the determining factor.
Of course, if Republicans were to nominate Nikki Haley, we would have a normal campaign, and if Biden couldn't campaign effectively, he would be toast. But then, barring some shocking event along the way, Haley would trounce him regardless.
Biden said while campaigning in 2020: “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,”. It's getting late Joe!
The problem with campaigning in an era of social media, AI, mobility, and algorithmic driven campaigns is that a perfect candidate can be quickly suffocated by multi-channel digital-chaos until support dwindles to some (theoretical) baseline. It's now a subtractive game, and it happens quickly - so the longer the campaign, the more subraction. While I understand that "presidential campaigns take more than a year to run" in the past, I'm not sure that plays into the new game - I think most of that campaigning is completely wasted effort. So are debates.
In my naivete', I keep hoping someone is thinking about shuffling, at a strategic point, a: Newsom, Whitmire, Pritzker, etc. into a role in the ticket after it's too late for the chaos to affect the outcome.
Out of curiosity, if Biden is currently at nearly record-low popularity levels, what would cause him to be retiring as a "historically well-regarded president"? Wouldn't we, by definition, need to wait a few decades to see how his term went in retrospect?
Guys, this whole thread is stupid. You don’t get your choice of candidates. The time to draft someone was months ago. His opponent is not some generic Republican but Donald Trump, who is...not the person that makes any sense when he speaks. You think Biden is bad? Trump thinks Kim Jong Un is the president of China and that he was president in 2021. Yet here you all are whining about Biden.
I’m just over this whiny crap. We all would like Whitmer or Polis or whomever. They didn’t run and could have. Biden may be old. Decent chance Trump is in jail in 6 months (and should be).
Heard on the news today that DeSantis is running an ad that assembles a number of Trump gaffes and blunders, pointing out his age and failing mental acuity (eg “Obama administration” when he meant to say “Biden administration”, came up multiple times). So that’s at least a bit reassuring, the fact that Trump’s shortcomings here will hopefully start to enter the conversation -- though I’m not totally sure that these means justify the end that DeSantis is hoping for.
The thing people are forgetting is that Biden is the President...and Trump is the former President and mostly in the news over his indictments. His speeches are carried by like Newsmax, not NBC. Once he’s on NBC, it’s gonna be a lot clearer that he’s off his game.
I doubt anyone who is considering this option needs to be told what not voting for Biden means - I assume anyone in that position has been there and back over and over with those trying to convince them. I will just say - I don’t think there has ever been a candidate that fully aligns with my values, and I am comfortable voting in a strategic fashion.
I find it striking that the Democratic leadership will not permit a credible challenger to Biden, but the supposedly "authoritarian" Republicans are holding real primaries with real choices (eg current and former governors and senators). And I say this as a lifelong (I'm 68) Democrat.
Democrats are really whistling past the graveyard here. It is so bizarre that they couldn't shuffle Joe offstage with a hero's farewell and have a normal primary with candidates who aren't older than the average life span. Any non-partisan who looks at Biden objectively sees a frail old man who is well past retirement age.
It's normal that a non-incumbent party holds a viable primary. Also very normal that the incumbent party does not hold a viable primary. It would be very unusual for Dems to have a primary with Biden running. This is the only reasonable universe we live in, there's no easy mechanism for anyone else to run if Biden runs. The discontented have to get this....if Biden runs, we're stuck with him in 2024 and it's time to get behind him, unless you really don't care if Trump is President again.
Why can’t Biden AND Trump just go away so we can have something resembling a normal election?
Because of Trump's personality that doesn't accept any indications of perceived or real weakness of its owner?
While you're right, I don't think that's a weakness that is unique to Trump in the world of presidential politics. I'd say, in recent years, Obama, Romney, and McCain seemed to be real men who were aware of their strengths and weaknesses.
I'd say Trump, Biden, H Clinton, etc, all appear to share that particular delightful foible. Although admittedly, Trump leans in to it with aplomb.
And here's your explanation for why we see these two dudes again although there's circa 160 million eligible Americans :)
That’s one reason. 🤣
Because both Biden and Trump are widely liked by a majority of their parties' primary voters
The Republicans are at least holding primaries with credible challengers to Trump.
It's not like the Democratic Party isn't allowing folks to challenge Biden. The reality is that any serious challenger to Biden has read the writing on the wall and opted not to bother with a challenge.
If anything, this thinking has more or less been validated based on what's happened on the Republican side. DeSantis looked like he could be a serious challenger, but it turns out he's too far to the right and/or too short and/or has too unlikeable of a personality.
And who wrote this "writing on the wall"?
Answer: it was the Democratic leadership and top donors (high level elites) that told potential serious candidates to stay out. It was certainly not rank-and-file Democrat voters, who polling shows want alternatives to Biden.
Democratic voters might want "an" alternative, but they don't have a SPECIFIC alternative they agree on. Some just want a younger moderate. Others, like me, want someone who lacks Biden's deference for the status quo. Others want a woman, or a particular racial minority, or a left-libertarian.
Democrats are a big-tent party with *at least* five major camps (economic progressives, social progressives, black voters, left-libertarians, and anti-Trump moderates, though some of those groups overlap) and those camps don't agree on a whole lot other than being tepid on Biden and thinking Donald Trump is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse.
As mentioned in the previous post's comment thread: generic anything polls well. But there's not a *specific* challenger who appears well-positioned to unseat Biden.
Democrats say they are interested in an alternative, but the reality is that most Democrats like Biden and would support him in a primary. Personally I am frustrated that Democrats are stuck with him, but that's due to the weakness of the parties, not some grand conspiracy.
At least Biden is sensible. Trump is deranged!
Whether Biden is perceived as sensible doesn’t matter. What matters is competence, which is sorely lacking in this administration. The economy is teetering on the brink, our adversaries are emboldened, crime is on the rise, our southern border is a mess. What are they doing to solve any of these and other “kitchen tables” issues? Biden is one major health event from leaving office. The fact that many folks can’t see this is almost unbelievable. They have obviously been drinking too much Kool-aid.
"The economy is teetering on the brink, our adversaries are emboldened, crime is on the rise, our southern border is a mess."
See, the problem is that you wouldn't have to make things up if you had confidence in the ability of the opposing candidate to win an election.
Politicians are narcissists. Biden, Trump, both Clintons, Obama--they all have that in common.
Eh, putting Biden in the same narcissist camp as either Clinton or Trump - or anyone in Trumps category - is not a responsible or accurate choice.
The responsible choice on Biden's part right now would be to acknowledge his weaknesses and retire.
All politicians are at some level egomaniacs. Biden is no exception.
Retire and then what? Also, what exactly has Biden done that makes you go, "oh, man, the old man has lost it"? Name something, please.
The problem that you've got here is that you - and plenty of others - cannot identify the path to a new nominee...and you're shouting about some kind of weakness that doesn't match his actions.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-parties-cant-decide?r=ca4fo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Every time I see video of him speaking I wonder why he is there. He is not all there.
The voting public has substantial doubts about Biden's ability to do the job. That is why people are freaking out.
If Biden refuses to step aside there is little anyone can do. That's obviously not going to be the end of the story though.
No
Trump is mentally ill and the others are not.
Trump is 1.1 points ahead of Biden in RCP's poll of polls.
If everyone else in the country is crazy then that becomes the default.
I hate to click like but if one believes, as I do, that these Republicans are different and dangerous, the worst thing to happen is anything that normalizes their behavior. Because that is exactly how the unthinkable becomes thinkable, how 'crazy' becomes the default. That ought to be Democrats' biggest concern, and it's not clear it argues in favor of keeping Biden, and there's a decent case to be made it does not.
Maybe, just maybe, Trump isn't as far outside of the mainstream as his opponents would like everyone to believe.
I think we're reading too much into the current polling. We'll have to wait until the campaigns begin in earnest before we have a real idea of people's opinions. We don't know how much about what answers are just reflections of disliking Biden vs. substantive support that can weather additional scrutiny on the road.
It can depend on whether one is talking policy or procedure. Leading an insurrection against the government and being a defendant in multiple criminal and civil cases is still, I think, outside the mainstream for voters in the middle. On policy though, Trump is good at getting people to think he's whatever they want him to be. Some people act like he's pro-choice, even though he appointed all the federal judges who are against that right. He mentioned once I think that Scotland was happy with single payer health care, so people can think he's in favor of a national system of universal coverage. The only major policy Republicans passed with legislation while he was president was a big corporate tax cut, so there's not a lot to go on there. It's most sensible to me to ignore everything Trump says, and instead watch what Republicans do, but Democrats can't count on that from the voters.
RCP's averages always slant right and they include insider polls. Not great methodology.
That said, this doesn't mean squat in terms of a horserace. "I'm down 1 point on the average 1 year out, so I'm retiring to give the reins over to [waves hands]."
What's the path to this?
In terms of a horseface? Nobody mentioned John Kerry.
The RCP average includes polling outfits like CNBC, Reuters, Qinnipaic, Emerson, Harvard/Harris, etc. etc.
In 2020 they had Biden up 7.2 points in their final average.
Because "the party decides" only applies to shifting endorsements for or against low probability candidates and incumbent presidents have massive influence on what the party decides.
Cope more liberal #TRUMP2024
I loath both Biden and Trump, but if they are just replaced with another Zionist corporatist pushing us towards WWIII that is no up grade, the real question is why does the system keep giving us Zionist corporatist when that is not what ordinary people want? And then the establishment wonders why a majority don't vote. Why would they when they aren't getting any representation?
I’m a student who has recently come back from a solo trip to front line Ukraine. I’ve just published a new piece on my experiences and thought readers here may appreciate it. Please do see what you think. https://irongoose.substack.com/
Biden might be more acceptable if he were to dump Kamala Harris and replace her with someone who inspires confidence that he/she could actually step in and do a credible job. Kackling Kamala only had 1 - 2% polling when she dropped out even before the first primary and she was clearly picked solely for her race and sex.
To me a VP switch feels more like papering over the central problems of Biden instead of addressing the root cause.
Setting Kamala adrift is a spicy and narratively interesting approach, but I feel it's more flashy than useful.
Maybe pick up Joe Manchin.
That would piss off a lot of Democrats, but it would draw a lot of Republicans over who are fed up with Trump's BS.
Exactly. And assuage some republican fear about the election. I'm a conservative and if I knew Joe would take over rather than Kamala, I'd be a lot less riled up about the election. I disagree with Joe on a lot of things, but I feel like he's a reasonable actor. I think Joe Manchin would take the urgency out of the election for conservatives who are not Trump ride-or-dies.
It would not bring "a lot" of Republicans over. The really aren't that many swing voters, and Manchin is not really the swing voter catnip some commenters pretend he is. His results in West Virginia are obviously impressive given the state's deep red nature, but his father, uncle, and grandfather were all West Virginia politicians, and it's a fairly unique and non-representative population. Adding Manchin to the ticket would make Biden do ~10% better in West Virginia (while still losing) without helping him at all in the actual battlegrounds, like Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Manchin has all of Biden's same electoral liabilities (old white guy, career politician, out of touch, not progressive enough, no new ideas/business as usual, etc) without any real upside. The voters Biden needs to convince to win are the educated, suburban voters in places like Georgia and Pennsylvania who used to be a solid Republican base but don't like Trump. Those voters don't really know or care about Joe Manchin. The only Republicans who Manchin has sway with are West Virginia coal miners, and they could not possibly be any less relevant to the outcome of a US presidential election.
I don't think being an old white guy who isn't progressive enough and is fairly "business as usual" is actually an electoral liability in a general election. I think educated, suburban voters are the prime audience for that kind of candidate.
It's true that Biden's business as usual thing plays with some voters, but it is also a liability with parts (important parts) of the Democratic base. A good VP pick is supposed to shore up some of the weaknesses of the candidate, not double down on them. Manchin doesn't offer any advantages that Biden himself doesn't already enjoy, and he comes with all the same weaknesses. If Manchin were actually capable of peeling off significant Republican support nationally, he would be an asset, but Manchin is popular with West Virginians, not Republicans nationally.
Look at the recent VP picks of election winners - Trump picked a relatively Bush-esque, mainstream Republican appeal to voters who were wary of his scandals and general insanity. Obama picked an old white guy with an established record to appeal to voters who were worried about electing a junior congressman with limited experience. Biden picked Kamala Harris to appeal to voters who were worried about his age.
I don't think you need to worry too much about turning out the progressive base- I think Trump will do that all on his own. Is there a possibility some progressive voters stay home because they feel betrayed? Possibly, but my best guess is the vast majority will still turn out to vote against Trump.
I think the VP choices you selected tell you more about how they were meant to calm down swing voters than the base. Trump was very popular with the base who liked that he was insane, Pence gave a sense of normalcy to the suburbs. The democratic base loved Obama, Biden was meant to help with old racist people who might have voted Republican. Here we see they were both used to appeal to swing voters, not the base and that's what all VP picks should be doing.
I'd be surprised about that.
The racial math favored by the Democrats right now makes replacing a black woman with a white male extremely problematic.
And the fact that the Democrats now do everything by race/sex/"gender" calculation is why I will no longer vote for any of them.
I mean, we plainly don't as we're now all geared up to vote for old cis male white christian again.
I'd love it if the DNC folks did some magic woke calculation to primary Biden out the door.
An old cis male white christian and his hand-picked airhead female POC VP. We also got his hand-picked airhead female SCOTUS Justice who doesn't know what a female is.
Eh, you probably think that every democrat is an airhead, so acting like one is airhead because she's female/POC is stupid af.
Biden was not an acceptable presidential candidate in 1988 or 2008. It was only after serving with Obama that voters decided he was acceptable, at least black voters.
And he coined the term "super predators."
Everytime a woman becomes more powerful her popularity tanks . KH was magnificent in the Senate but as soon as she was made VP the misogyny knives came out.
Sandra, please clue us in on exactly what she accomplished in the Senate. What bills did she author that actually passed the Senate?
Also, you are ignoring her time as AG in California - Tulsi Gabbard ripped her to shreds over her record of corruption. She ended up dropping out before the first primary took place having only 1 - 2% polling, so again, what has she accomplished that we should look favorably on?
I have a low opinion of Tulsi Gabbard so fuck her. She's as right wing as the GOP. Throwing slings during candidate debates is par for the course. KH performed well as an attorney despite TG slanders. As for bills, feck all of them get passed in Congress since it has a stalemate existence, but she passed the anti lynching bill, legislated to preserve Historically Black Colleges and Universities and assistance to low income communities during pandemic. Her ability in committees was what impressed me and her advocacy for women's rights, healthcare, immigrants, criminal justice reform, early childhood education etc.
Is there a substantial chunk of voters (in the general election) who will vote or not vote for Biden depending on whether Harris is his running mate?
I think so. She's polling even lower than Biden.
I'm just trying to understand who that voter is.
They will vote for Biden/____ over Trump.
But if it's Biden/Harris, they will either vote for Trump or stay home?
People don't really care about the vice president - normally. But in this case Biden is 80 and has started shuffling instead of walking.
But your point is valid. Democrats hate Trump as do many independents. They will vote for Biden with Harvey Weinstein as a running mate over Trump.
My best guess is it's people who think that Biden > Trump > Kamala, but also think Biden is in his 80s and won't last for another full term so realistically a vote for him is a vote for his VP.
"Biden > Trump > Kamala"
I want this person to explain that opinion.
There's a bit of misogyny and/or racism going on there, even if the person with that preference order is in denial of it. Such people do exist.
I do not foresee a Trump supporter voting for Biden no matter who the running mate is, but I do foresee dejected Democrats and Never Trumpers staying home.
For myself, I will not vote for Trump or Biden. However, staying home expresses only apathy. If they are the nominees, and at this point it certainly seems likely, then I will vote for RFK, Jr. so that I can flip the bird at both parties and actively tell them that their nominees are unacceptable.
"I do not foresee a Trump supporter voting for Biden no matter who the running mate is, but I do foresee dejected Democrats and Never Trumpers staying home. "
It's just so hard for to me to imagine the voter who is going to change their vote (or whether to vote) based on who Biden's running mate is.
I think most people believe that if Biden is at the top of the ticket, he won't last long, therefore, his running mate is the real top of the ticket. Democrat partisans will "Vote Blue No Matter Who" (maybe the most mindless mantra I've ever heard) and Republican partisans will do the Red equivalent, but IMHO, the running mate will matter very much to any truly independent voter.
Eh, the VP doesn't matter much.
Normally true, but now the presidential candidate is 80 and has started shuffling instead of walking. But if Trump is the candidate Biden goes against then it won't matter who the VP is because the hate for Trump is so strong among so many that they would take Biden and a recently released narcotics dealer over Trump.
I’d pick Jared Polis. Actually, I’d run Jared Polis, but I’m not sure how that could be accomplished outside a primary structure.
Kamala Harris is a brilliant woman short-changed by remarks like these. Why she is not speaking out is a mystery .
Carolyn, please clue us in on exactly what Kamala accomplished in the Senate. What bills did she author that actually passed the Senate?
Also, you are ignoring her time as AG in California - Tulsi Gabbard ripped her to shreds over her record of corruption. She ended up dropping out before the first primary took place having only 1 - 2% polling, so again, what has she accomplished that we should look favorably on?
Curiously, this seems to be one election where the choice of VP might actually matter. Maybe it’s the ages of the two obvious nominees. Trump could seal the deal with a competent female. Or he could nominate another Pence and gain nothing versus Harris, who has to be one of the easiest marks in history. Either way, there’s a good chance we might see the VP elevated to the presidency, and if Trump can’t win that one, he doesn’t deserve the office.
I still say they should both be dumped.
Everytime a woman becomes more powerful her popularity tanks . KH was magnificent in the Senate but as soon as she was made VP the misogyny knives came out.
I was hoping that “Fantasy Politics Manager” link was a real game that was about to suck up hours of my time 😂
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1184770/The_Political_Process/
Not by that name, but this is genuinely a fantastic political process simulator. Make your candidate, figure out your campaign strategy, run the numbers, govern and then run again! Not the flashiest looking game but for the simulation, there's few better out there.
You are a legend, I will take a look!
By far my biggest complaint with this post. That link was an absolute bait and switch of sadness.
Your the best in the business so I’ll read whatever you write, but Biden is going to be the nominee. When do we get a model
Nice column, but you simply dip your toe in the water without examining the real question. What evidence is there that Biden’s age has caused him to make mistakes, to fail to act, to use poor judgment either short or long term ?
I would say none and your James Polk closer indicates that you probably agree.
Campaigning is only the prelude to governing. I don’t see any indication that Biden has governed poorly. Criticism of Biden has consisted of GOP smears and media cosmetology. There is no chorus of agreement that he has done anything that a center-left Democrat president would do wrong or foolishly. In fact he has done a decent better than decent job. Much better than his obese senescent narcissist opponent did or would do again.
The question the article poses is whether Biden is physically capable of campaigning again. The answer appears to be "No".
Biden's propensity to gaffe and his age are plausible reasons to limit public appearances, making it hard to interpret the data. Especially as gaffes trigger age concerns, even if they are unrelated.
Is there any better and available data to answer the question?
I'd vote for looking at public appearances or public appearance minutes across Biden's term and see if there's a decline, but it would have to be compared to previous presidents as there could be a seasonality to these.
I broadly agree with the concerns. My only nit is I’m not sure the activity level of Trump as incumbent President is a fair comparison. Does anyone really believe he was actively engaged in governing at the same time as campaigning? I’m fairly certain he prioritized rallies and whatever he felt like over governing.
I think you're right, but I think this is also standard opinion of the other party. I remember thinking it was crazy how much time Obama was spending on the campaign trail during his reelection.
They're probably all guilty of over-emphasizing the election and we're all guilty of assigning more blame to the other guy and more grace to ours.
Since "Generic Democrat" will not be running, in order to beat a former president who has strong popular support, it would be necessary to find an actual person who has (1) national name recognition, (2) immediate credibility as someone with a well-recognized, proven track record of governing, and negotiating with both foreign and domestic political leaders, and (3) a well-known record of assembling coalitions among multiple highly contentious parties to achieve both meaningful legislation and effective international action. Mr. or Ms. "Congeniality with Strong Home State Support" will not cut it. I frankly don't believe such a person exists. I don't believe a Rose Garden campaign would be a worse bet than suddenly and desperately trying to find and promote a non-existent person. Polis, Pritzker, Whitmer et al. may be viable down the road, but right now against Trump? Who would be willing to take that bet? What odds would you give?
Agree. People forget the Obama neglect set the democratic bench back until 2028. There's not enough time to develop someone for Nov 2024 not named biden. That argument is true today and was true on Jan 20 2021 as well
I understand concerns about age and effective campaigning, etc. But take a step back. In no other universe would we expect the incumbent to walk away or be a significant underdog a year out from the election; Biden won by 7 million votes in 2020, BEFORE Jan 6 or Dobbs, or Trump's criminal trials, etc. So the idea that he's going to lose enough of those votes to lose the election is hard to believe; As mentioned in the article, Trump had a more prolific campaign schedule, but still lost in 2020. So is this really as big a deal as it seems....it needs to be noted that his rallys - which have a few thousand people hooting and hollering - don't translate into votes any more than a large Twitter/X presence does. Biden's the obvious candidate. And yes, he's old. And yes, people will be concerned about his age. Does this mean people won't vote for him? No.
While Biden won by a substantial amount in the popular vote, his margin of victory was incredibly narrow in the tipping point state (Wisconsin), only winning by 20,000 votes. If he had also lost Arizona (10,000 vote margin) and Georgia (11,000), Biden would have come short of a win in the electoral college. We were very, very close to a Trump victory in 2020
I do understand that, but again, this was all pre Jan 6, Dobbs, Trump's criminal indictments/trials, etc. I know there's a possibility Trump wins, and Dems need to constantly fight and scrape, but I don't think the age and concerns about age is going to be a significant factor (barring some age-related stumble a la McConnell, which is really what the age concern is all about).
It's not clear that Trump's scandals are hindering him. He's currently running away with the GOP primary. Dobbs *can* help Dems, I think, as a turnout engine. But to Derek Tank's point, Biden's 7 million vote margin doesn't matter as much as the 40,000 votes that ultimately determined the presidency.
The polls don't reflect your scenario however.
I'm not taking these polls too seriously. First, they are always skewed against the incumbent this far out from the election, and especially will be now coming off high levels of inflation and low consumer confidence, which are both likely to improve over the next year. Second, recent polls have been shown to have more bias toward Republicans, since they overcompensated in their methodology to account for the previous Democrat bias. Third, the idea that Biden has had a 20-30 point swing among any demographic in a 3 year period is just unheard of and laughable.
Guys like Silver, Carville and Wasserman (namely professional political analysyts) are taking the polls seriously. That's kind of the justification for this article.
I mean this whole article is a big "I don't know" from Nate. Nate himself says the polls aren't really justification for much without more inside knowledge. All we can look at is the decisions that people with inside knowledge are making, which is Biden running for re-election.
I voted for Biden in 2020, but I'm not voting for him next year. And I know others who are similar to me. I don't think he's capable of doing the job well anymore, much less four years from now. Trump is awful and unfit for office, but Biden is unfit too in a different way, and people forget we have the option to simply not vote for either one of them
Respectfully, I think you might change your mind come 2024, when you're faced with the real choice between Joe Biden and a man who has already tried to overthrow an election and install himself unconstitutionally in the White House, is currently calling his political rivals "vermin", and planning to round up millions of humans and put them into "camps". You'll have to ask yourself if you're willing to personally increase the chances of a national nightmare occurring from which we may never wake up.
Respectfully, I can do without the condescension from you and others in this thread, as I'm quite aware of what the "real choice" is. Yes, I know Trump is awful. I said it myself in my first comment, and you don't have to remind me. But none of Trump's awfulness changes the fact that Biden is unfit as well. I don't want to vote for whatever anonymous group of handlers is running things for Biden and writing his remarks on the Teleprompter for the next four years. If you're claiming that the only two options are between an 80+ year old clearly deteriorating before our eyes and a national nightmare, then why did the Democratic Party foist Biden on us without so much as a single primary debate? If Biden loses, and I think he will, this is on *them*, not voters who are fed up with "lesser of two evils" garbage
No, it will always be on the voters. The parties are run by the voters. If you don't like how the Democratic Party does business, you can join its ranks and try to change it from within. But if you're faced with the choice of Biden v Trump in 2024 and you really don't vote for Biden or his "handlers" for that matter, and Trump wins, you'll have to live with that the rest of your life and rationalize to yourself and others why you helped allow it to happen.
The people running the parties are different and very far-removed from the "voters". I've been a Democratic Party member for decades, worked for them and volunteered at the local level, and trust me, nobody asked my opinion on any of this. Tbh I'm a lot less able to rationalize voting for a lesser of two evils than I am not voting for any evil at all. And if the biggest problem I have afterwards are hyperbolic mean girl comments about how I brought about the End Of The World, then I can live with that
It’s interesting because I wonder if men feel like they have less to lose with Trump in office, because their rights are not being taken away.
I know that my rights as a person of color and as a woman are at risk if the U.S. does not sustain its democracy. Black women are often the first to feel the suffering.
I can’t change your mind, but I’m 33 (a millennial) and will be voting for Biden. In doing so, I’m not just voting for him, but the entire Democratic Party.
Men will truly never understand what women go through. The kind of hatred that the republicans have against women -- there are no words. It’s cruel and repulsive. They’re going beyond abortion and want to go after contraceptives. So many men don’t understand how contraceptive are used as pain management for dysmenorrhea (often characterized by extremely painful and heavy periods).
It brings me to tears to know that there are people out there that are just like - “who gives a fuck about women” I’m not voting for Biden.
By electing Biden, my hope is that democrats can continue to protect women and LGBT people from the monstrous bills and laws that republicans have in mind.
I know that these are things that you don’t care about since you are comfortable staying home. But this election is about so much more than age for me. I’m actually afraid for my own wellbeing and that of my friends and family.
I hope so, but we shouldn't just assume it, and that's why people are asking whether or not running Biden is the best way to stop that scenario from happening.
It’s perfectly fine to ask that question - not fine in any version or interpretation of reality to consider not voting for Biden against Trump.
I'm not saying it's okay; I'm saying enough voters might do it, so Democrats should do whatever they can to minimize the risk of Republicans winning.
what do you suggest the Dems do?
it's either:
1 - replace Biden
2 - run Biden
Lots of folks are pitching a tantrum because they see both options as being terrible. But that isn't helpful.
Whiny crybabies like yourself are really boring.
If you can't see that staying home is a vote for Trump, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe just do that and live with your choices. Either way, please move on from any further discussion on the topic because it isn't a serious viewpoint.
Lol, I was in a thread with right-wing guys a few weeks ago who told me not voting was a vote for *Biden*. I wish all you serious people could make up your minds!
In a first past the post system, "not voting" is akin to voting for the guy who is least similar to your own ideals. Basically not voting helps whoever you dislike most, since you would ostensibly vote for the candidate you like the most if you did vote. So unless you dislike both trump and biden equally, then you really are doing yourself a disservice by not voting.
Back in electoral reality though, if you don't live in a swing state then your presidential vote doesn't matter anyway. Murica.
Hm well, "like" is a loaded term there, as it's not about likability but about fitness for the job. I do live in a swing state, and I happen to think both guys are equally unfit (albeit in different ways). I guess you can say I "dislike" both of their capacities to be a good president equally, but it has nothing to do with, say, whether I want to have a beer with either one of them
Yes, I'm using "like" to refer to whichever you would prefer most.
I will vote for Biden over Trump, but I'm actively donating to Nikki Haley to have a candidate on the ballot who's both sane and under 75.
What exactly has Biden done or not done that you think makes him unfit?
Yeah vote Green. You have no knowledge of history.
I'll pass on the Green Party. But thanks for your permission! It's very big of you to deign to allow me to make up my own mind on who to vote for.
Thanks for your response. I apologize for deigning. It's still a mostly free country unless you live in Florida.
Another one who doesn't know history.
And the Republicans deserted the center after Nixon inheiried the Southern Dems and have careened rightward ever since.
So we now have a tire on our wheel that has a very large bump. Doesn't make for a smooth ride for snyone.
Democrats who say he is to old will vote for him
Dems who say he is too conservative will vote for him. Dems who say he is too progressive will vote for him. Gen x and z will vote for him.
Dems always bitch until they vote.
A Trump-Biden rerun would almost certainly be decided on the basis of which candidate alarmed the public more. And that is not normal, so it strikes me as unreliable to predict based on normal benchmarks.
My guess is that active campaigning will mean little, because the goal of that is to get people to vote FOR you. But this time, the vast majority of the people will be voting AGAINST someone.
Again, just a guess, but I'm thinking that a whole lot of people expressing disapproval of Biden are saying this in the hope they can get someone younger or more progressive. Not that they won't vote for whoever runs against Trump. Including Biden.
There will be months of criminal trials during this campaign, and I suspect that that (and the spin of that) will be the determining factor.
Of course, if Republicans were to nominate Nikki Haley, we would have a normal campaign, and if Biden couldn't campaign effectively, he would be toast. But then, barring some shocking event along the way, Haley would trounce him regardless.
I think “voting against” was the norm in 2016 and 2020 tbh
Biden said while campaigning in 2020: “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,”. It's getting late Joe!
The problem with campaigning in an era of social media, AI, mobility, and algorithmic driven campaigns is that a perfect candidate can be quickly suffocated by multi-channel digital-chaos until support dwindles to some (theoretical) baseline. It's now a subtractive game, and it happens quickly - so the longer the campaign, the more subraction. While I understand that "presidential campaigns take more than a year to run" in the past, I'm not sure that plays into the new game - I think most of that campaigning is completely wasted effort. So are debates.
In my naivete', I keep hoping someone is thinking about shuffling, at a strategic point, a: Newsom, Whitmire, Pritzker, etc. into a role in the ticket after it's too late for the chaos to affect the outcome.
It all comes down to this: what other Democrat can beat Biden. It certainly isn’t Harris. I don’t see anyone else out there. It is what it is!
Whitmer?
Out of curiosity, if Biden is currently at nearly record-low popularity levels, what would cause him to be retiring as a "historically well-regarded president"? Wouldn't we, by definition, need to wait a few decades to see how his term went in retrospect?
MAGA extremist Nate Silver being disloyal to Joe Biden and Disney again.
Guys, this whole thread is stupid. You don’t get your choice of candidates. The time to draft someone was months ago. His opponent is not some generic Republican but Donald Trump, who is...not the person that makes any sense when he speaks. You think Biden is bad? Trump thinks Kim Jong Un is the president of China and that he was president in 2021. Yet here you all are whining about Biden.
I’m just over this whiny crap. We all would like Whitmer or Polis or whomever. They didn’t run and could have. Biden may be old. Decent chance Trump is in jail in 6 months (and should be).
I do not get this. At all.
Heard on the news today that DeSantis is running an ad that assembles a number of Trump gaffes and blunders, pointing out his age and failing mental acuity (eg “Obama administration” when he meant to say “Biden administration”, came up multiple times). So that’s at least a bit reassuring, the fact that Trump’s shortcomings here will hopefully start to enter the conversation -- though I’m not totally sure that these means justify the end that DeSantis is hoping for.
The thing people are forgetting is that Biden is the President...and Trump is the former President and mostly in the news over his indictments. His speeches are carried by like Newsmax, not NBC. Once he’s on NBC, it’s gonna be a lot clearer that he’s off his game.
I doubt anyone who is considering this option needs to be told what not voting for Biden means - I assume anyone in that position has been there and back over and over with those trying to convince them. I will just say - I don’t think there has ever been a candidate that fully aligns with my values, and I am comfortable voting in a strategic fashion.
I find it striking that the Democratic leadership will not permit a credible challenger to Biden, but the supposedly "authoritarian" Republicans are holding real primaries with real choices (eg current and former governors and senators). And I say this as a lifelong (I'm 68) Democrat.
Democrats are really whistling past the graveyard here. It is so bizarre that they couldn't shuffle Joe offstage with a hero's farewell and have a normal primary with candidates who aren't older than the average life span. Any non-partisan who looks at Biden objectively sees a frail old man who is well past retirement age.
It's normal that a non-incumbent party holds a viable primary. Also very normal that the incumbent party does not hold a viable primary. It would be very unusual for Dems to have a primary with Biden running. This is the only reasonable universe we live in, there's no easy mechanism for anyone else to run if Biden runs. The discontented have to get this....if Biden runs, we're stuck with him in 2024 and it's time to get behind him, unless you really don't care if Trump is President again.