If the “resistance libs” are the wing of the party who thing nothing is actually wrong with the democratic brand, nothing was actually wrong with Biden and it’s he who was wronged, not the democratic voters who were lied to about his cognitive decline and robbed of a chance to select our nominee in 2024, and that the only reason we got Trump 2.0 AND PUSHED OUR COUNTRY TO THE BRINK of complete distraction was because “everyone is being mean to the old guy and the black women and they need a scoldin” then left and center in the party need to have a cease fire for two years unite against them because the far left and the blue dogs have far more in common with each other than whatever the hell that wing is.
Both the left and the abundance would love a cease fire between them - the problem is the terms. The left would want the “compromise” candidate to be AOC, while the abundance dems would want someone like Buttigieg. The result is not really a compromise at all, just an argument about what the compromise should be.
I am on the record as saying I would prefer either of AOC OR Buttigieg to Newsom, since I think the democrats have a communication problem more than a policy problem, but I’m in the minority. Most AOC fans won’t want Buttigieg, and vice versa.
Buttigieg is definitely NOT the "Abundance" candidate. "Abundance" is all about getting things, done, and Buttigieg's term as Transportation Secretary was an unabashed disaster.
No problem: As one summary put it, "MIA during a supply chain crisis, neglecting critical FAA upgrades and air traffic controller shortages, contributing to a January 2023 NOTAM outage disrupting 11,000 flights, mismanaging $1.2 trillion in infrastructure funds, with a 2023 GAO report highlighting delays that stalled vital transit projects."
The articles are from 2023 with Republicans whining about common sorts of things that happen in the Transportation Dept. If they want to go on the record about how things are now they might have a shred of credibility.
Having emergencies isn't the issue given the size of the US transportation infrastructure.
The entire article from "The Point" that you pasted without attribution is a MAGA hit piece - the Spirit / JetBlue analysis is hilarious, as is the complaint about paternity leave.
For a more specific example, the cited GAO report is an analysis of funds allocated in Feb 2023 and the report was dated May 2023, it seems silly to claim it proves that Buttigieg mismanaged anything in those two months. Instead it is actually an advisory piece that suggests key areas for attention, and the progress tracker documents that DoT actually addressed the issues.
So no, not really "unabashed disaster". Just normal everyday DoT stuff. And normal everyday partisan ankle biting.
The NOTAM mess was the result of a long period of disregard for modernizing the FAA, not the least of which was Trump's eternal promise for "Transportation week", but never delivering any actual proposal, let alone getting a bill.
I'll read up on the other items. Thanks!
(Edit : to be clear, I think Buttigieg is a nice guy, but small town mayor is not actually qualification to run a department the size and importance of the Transportation Dept.)
So what was actually wrong with Biden? That he was old? Nate has an irrational hate of Biden which does not really align with the public opinion. Biden is considered a pretty middle of the road president by the scholars.
That was his whole point, to end Trump and restore the soul of the nation. He failed miserably. We have had the worst president in US history twice now and one of the worst in between. It’s been a rough decade.
It's too soon to take the opinion of "presidential scholars" with anything other than a giant grain of salt. After all, they are part of academia and almost certainly share a common set of biases that are exaggerated by the fact that they (like the rest of us) are living through a second Trump administration.
By 2050 or so we'll have a better view of the long term consequences, and the scholars that study presidents will be well placed to put things in context.
In the meantime "Trump won in '24" is damning enough for me to rank him as one of the worst. If Trump does end up destroying our democracy I think you will need to put Biden at the bottom (right above trump) since it is his fault that Trump is president now.
This will change as we get more time. And middle of pack is not great in recent history. He’s an abject failure because he failed his promises. Did not restore the soul of the nation, did not stop Trumpism, did not serve as a transition for the Democrat party. I could give a damn what scholars currently think. When we have more hindsight we will properly rank Biden, and he’s one of the worst, especially in modern history. I’m sure right after the Buchanan presidency they were hedging their bets on how bad he was doing, today he’s the worst.
Yes, he was old, and his cognitive decline was serious enough to make him unfit to be the leader of the country. A fact that everyone eventually faced, even if he did somewhat bitterly. Holding on to power for your own personal sake too long at the expense of a nation is a damning thing. Like a parent who refuses to give up driving and crashes their car, except in this case the car is an entire country. He was a fairly good president, not epic but he did as good as we could have expected given the shit sandwich he had on his hands, but he gets to be judged by the ultimate consequences of his actions, and the ultimate consequences of his actions include Donald Trump. But honestly I don’t have any ill will towards him, anymore than I would a parent or grandparent who had early onset dementia. This isn’t really about Biden, it’s about the totality of how the end of his presidency was handled by the establishment, and the utter failure of leadership at every step of the game, including the refusal to give their voters a chance to decide. Had the democratic base actually voted to nominate Kamala Harris, I think she would have won, as flawed as a candidate as she is. But voters don’t like being “daddy knows best” by the octengarian ruling class.
“Better than Trump” means nothing. Whatever he has, it was clear to everyone who was willing to look objectively that he was not fit to be president. What alienated voters the most wasn’t that, it was the gaslighting - like this comment. Telling voters to ignore what’s in front of their eyes because you don’t think it’s fair is the quickest way to lose elections. You clearly represent the wing of the Democratic Party who doesn’t care about winning elections
One thing I could think about was how badly he handled the border crisis and that alone alienated many immigrants.
I didn't like Biden that much because he promised to "heal the difference" but ended up embracing the progressive wing of the party. Bad timing pushing a lot of those ideas when normal folks increasingly struggled with their personal finances
Yeah he was old, unfit to serve another term, and signaled he was not going to run for another term by being a transition candidate. He basically lied and then acted like we were all delusional because of his key lie about running again. His justice department acted incredibly slow in prosecuting Trump. Not a single mile of rural broadband was laid before his term was up because of the capricious rules that dragged out the approval process. The bill he touted as one of the largest investments in the US stalled in its implementation. (Read abundance, for all Nate’s calling it a critique of California’s failures, it’s more a critique of Democratic governance, particularly CA and particularly the failed Biden administration). My biggest qualms about all of Biden, is he was touting the legislation getting passed as the biggest achievement while barely anything was actually happening because of the legislation. His admin was very Trumpy in that regard.
He pardoned his family. Yes, he should have always done the right thing because in the face of Trump the right thing was what mattered (broken promise to restore soul of the nation). I can go on, and I’m a loyal dem voter and I was going to vote for Biden over Trump knowing he was going to lose. Nate’s problem with Biden is valid, and it’s Biden’s defenders who are delusional.
And more importantly, Biden and his admin claimed he was one of the most consequential presidencies in US history. And, even more importantly, in the face of Trump he needed to be one of the best presidents, not just a mediocre, inconsequential in your terms or one of the bottom 5 in my terms. So no matter what, Nate is right to criticize the heck out of Biden, he’s how we are teetering on the edge of authoritarianism and the collapse of American Democracy as we’ve come to know it.
Generally, I think it's too early to look to who the Democratic party will nominate for 2028. It's like asking people now what they want for Xmas dinner. The focus is more now, more on the midterms, more on affordability. Or like asking a 20 year old if they want to have kids if and when they get married. The question AND the answer is premature.
Secondly, I think there is a failure to recognize how large the percentage is of independents (aka "unaffiliated" voters). I think independents are largely "undecided" so they are the key population in the key 10-15 states that have the potential to determine the midterms and the 2028 elections.
So the polling doesn't focus on the data that is relevant.
BTW, I don't think Kamala has a prayer nor does Buttigieg in 2028. I think the future is foggy!
"The question AND the answer is premature." I think this is a very thoughtful point. It's like asking kids what they want to be when they grow up --- just to laugh at their inappropriate and unlikely choices, I suppose. Not a nice thing to do, to ask questions that can't possibly be answered sensibly at the time.
The future is always foggy, always dependent on the wild and free present. Nate Silver doesn't think Trump's people can do a Three-peat, but he does caveat that with the possibility that Trump could get more popular (even than he is now, which I think Nate underestimates). A lot of people have started saying the Dems need a Trump (because winning is the thing) ----- a populist, like Bernie, but maybe not a socialist. Newsom, no populist, could drop from sight entirely, like Jeb Bush.
While my initial impression is to agree, Nate addressed the "timeliness" of this conversation fairly early on in this article by including a link to a piece he wrote years ago and stating:
"But these early polls do have some predictive power, believe it or not."
Regarding Biden and his legacy, I can’t speak for Newsom because I can’t read his mind, but I think the main reason why some people people refuse to forget Biden and move on is because they genuinely believe what they say about him.
I happen to be one of those people. If I was a politician and you asked me who I consider the best president of the 21st century, I’d say Biden. Not as some sort of political move to appease someone, but because that’s what I actually believe.
Biden's main lasting accomplishment was paving the way for Trump's 2nd term because he decided to run for re-election. We're all paying the price for that.
What would you say are the top 3 to 5 points in favor of Biden being a good or great president? Just in your mind, not through some objective lens.
I ask not to start an argument but because I’m curious. I’m personally sour on his presidency but you tend to read more negative coverage than positive coverage of almost any politician. It could be that I’m forgetting some good points.
No matter what your answers are, I won’t argue. I’d just like to know.
I could try to remember specific accomplishments off the top of my head, such as ending the war in Afghanistan, but I mostly just like that A, he was by far the most leftist president of the post-Carter era and B, he was a competent administrator who knew how to govern effectively.
And even when his declining abilities forced him to check halfway out, the country was still fine because he surrounded himself with competent people who could govern for him.
At the time, I wanted him to run because my top priority was beating Trump, and I thought that Biden was the best suited person for the task because he was the only politician with a track record of beating Trump in elections.
In hindsight, knowing what I know now, I obviously think he made a mistake. By all accounts, his cognitive abilities fell off a cliff around the midterms, which means that he should have resigned from the Presidency then. If not, then at the very least, he should have announced in 2022 that he was not going to run again.
Shapiro could win a general election, but will never win the primary.
After seeing how California has performed under his stewardship, with businesses leaving and losing congressional seats due to population declines, it’s almost impossible to envision how Newsome would make a coherent policy argument in the general. Maybe his good looks and pretty hair can get him through the primary, but color me skeptical that Dem primary voters are *that* shallow.
Can we all agree that Kamala has precisely zero chance of winning an open primary race?
California's economy has grown quite a bit under Newsom.
And our population has not dropped all that much. 39.4 million to 39.3 million.
As for Harris, the Dems allocate delegates proportionally by congressional district. I expect Harris can get more votes than people think, but probably not a majority of the delegates.
"High Speed Rail" is going to be Newsom's version of Trump's green reflecting pool. Newsom took over the Governorship promising to "fix" it. Eight years and tens of billions of dollars later not a foot of track has been laid and a court just ruled that his latest plan (a line "from just outside Bakersfield to just outside Merced") violates state law. The next Governor is going to have no choice but to shut it down, just as Newsom tries to launch his Presidential campaign.
There is a slight parallel to the reflecting pool in that the biggest messes of the Cal HSR project are because of decisions Jerry Brown made, and unreasonable goals and milestones in the state proposition, none of which is Newsom's fault.
Similarly, the reflecting pool has been a problem for a long time. But Trump took hands-on control of the reflecting pool with no-bid contracts and Trump's design decisions made the project fail.
In contrast, CaHSR is and had been running the project with professional engineers, and while there have been issues there is no indication that the rail will turn into a pool of algae.
More details about the court ruling you mention would be interesting. I can't find anything like that.
Perhaps you are referring to CaHSR's decision to stop fighting Trump to force delivery of the money that was legally appropriated? They withdrew voluntarily after Trump lost his request to have the case thrown out.
Finally, there is no point in laying track before the crossings are done. Track is currently planed to hit the ground this Fall, but feel free to be skeptical.
There's a typo in the CNN/SSRS table--Biden cannot be viewed favorably by 30% of the total population and 42% of Whites, 53% of Blacks and 40% of Hispanics. It's actually 23% of Whites, the 40% is for "people of color". Another minor quibble is comparing Biden's current 30% favorability rating to his 38% approval rating when he left office is apples-to-oranges. His favorability rating was 33% when he left office.
The important point is neglecting the "no opinion" and "never heard of him" misses the main point. Biden's low favorability among swing groups is disengagement, not unfavorable views. Only 13% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans had no opinion about Biden, but 23% of Independent/Other did. There were similar levels among voters with latent Democratic votes: Moderates (18%), 18-29 (23%) and non-college (17%). These voters didn't sour on Biden, they forgot him.
Another point is that the racial, ideology, education, engagement and age have very little information. All break down close to the partisan splits within these groups.
The key statistic I take away is that if Gavin Newsom embraced Biden and got every single voter with a favorable view of Biden, and also every single voter with no opinion, he'd lose with 46% of the vote. Any Democrat's path to a popular majority requires either (a) winning votes from people with unfavorable views of Biden, or (b) people changing their views of Biden before November 2028.
I don't see why Biden is relevant at all. People aren't all that angry about the "gaslighting." It was a confusing situation and as a Republican even I didn't think Biden was senile. It was an electoral calamity for everyone, and we had it, and now we're elsewhen. People here are saying NONE of the known Dem hopefuls are likely to win and I agree. The Dems need someone coming down an escalator in 2027, a surprise, preferably with charisma, and I bet they get one or more of them. Someone we don't know about yet.
I really don't think that '28 is going to be THAT hard for a democrat to win. American's tire of the party in charge, and right now that's the republicans. Trump won't be on the ballot in '28, and most of his replacements will be saddled with Trump blowback without Trump charisma.
Obviously the democrats should still try to pick a good candidate, but the idea that they have to pick a once in a generation talent to win in '28 doesn't seem right to me.
That being said, they probably DO need a really good pick to win again in '32.
I agree there's not much anger at Biden among swing voters and also that disengagement is worse for establishment Democrats than rage--you can rebut anger, it's energy you can use, you can't re-recruit voters who have checked out by offering a familiar face. The checked-out bloc skews young, nonwhite and independent--exactly the demographics Democrats need to win. An attractive outsider is desperately needed.
But Bruce Springsteen warned us not to "waste your summer prayin' in vain for a savior to rise from these streets." Electable outsiders are rare--Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton--and generally emerge to challenge incumbents from the other party. Barack Obama was a semi-outsider who beat a non-incumbent, but also an extraordinary candidate--once-in-a-generation if you're lucky. Most unknown candidates are unknown for good reason. Leaderless fields generally lead to parties flocking to safety--Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Biden.
Gavin Newsom may be shaping up to be the last establishment candidate standing with Tim Walz and Andrew Cuomo collapsed and Kamala Harris uncertain. Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg are borderline and the rest of the field seem like real longshots at the moment.
Fetterman would be ideal if not for his stroke and heart issues. Solid electoral success in a swing state, strong appeal to moderates and anti-Trump Republicans, reputation for independence and common sense, strong on core Democratic issues but not on board for some of the more progressive positions that most alarm conservative Democrats and independents. Progressives would be angry and a few would stay home, particularly the anti-Israel and extreme anti-Trumpers, but almost all would get on board to prevent JD Vance or another Republican.
But the combination of serious mental and physical health problems would likely disqualify him.
Agreed. I am more optimistic about his stroke problem, though; he seems to have recovered quite well, considering the severity. Though I listened carefully to a recent speech and there are some communication issues still.
I have been thinking and saying for some time that Fetterman wanted to turn Republican, and that is still possible ---- but suddenly realized he's got a Joe Manchin thing going. I've read that every senator looks in the mirror and sees the President of the United States, and I'd say Fetterman is hoping for a draft.
He would need a good vice-president, though! These pols never do that, however: indeed, they go the other way, as Biden did, and choose someone completely unsuitable, as if for a sort of insurance against dying. I've seen it again and again with governors. Their lieutenants are often totally inappropriate persons from disability and DEI lists --- because they are so sure nothing will happen to them. Like Eliot Spitzer.
If the three factions or leftists, abundance, and resistance, and Obama cuts across all three factions (and also gets love for independents) - isnt the play to signal a "return to Obama?" He is clearly the most popular living former (or current) president, his time in office was clearly more successful and had more lasting impact than anyone since Bush Sr if not Reagan - doesnt it makes a ton of sense for an establishment candidate to run away from Biden and back towards the Obama legacy?
Very noteworthy posting. I am a most happy subscriber. I wish Mark Kelly were viewed more favorably. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I also think a Mark Kelly and Gretchen Whitmer ticket would be wonderful. She has been a great governor for Michigan. Probably just wishing and hoping...
As you said, get over Biden. There's simply no virtue in continuing to dissect him. The vast majority of democrats have no such interest. And probably a near majority of registered democrats doesn't even know who Newsom is! And why no mention of Pritzker who could actually himself and his family fund a national campaign, primary and general, when cash will again be king....and all the other candidates have next to know cash...at least for now. And while I'm at it, stop talking about AOC, Harris and Buttigieg, there's not the remotest chance any of them will be the nominee.
Maybe AOC --- she DOES have some charisma, which none of the other possibles have on the Dem side. I don't see how it could be Pritzker: he's WAAAY too ugly and morbidly obese. A non-starter on those grounds like Chris Christie ended up being. And Josh Shapiro winning a Democrat primary, while being an observant, Israel-supporting Jew? I just can't imagine the Dem primary voters letting him through. The general election, maybe. The primaries, no.
AOC's charisma is strictly for the left of the left...Pritzker lost a lot of weight...and is much better looking.... plus, his billions....in dollars...not pounds.... Shapiro wins in PA... a deeply purple state.... much more representative of the country...
I agree with both your points about AOC and Shapiro --- AOC could get thru the primaries (if the establishment didn't block her like they did repeatedly to Bernie) but surely not the general election; the opposite for Shapiro. All this war raging on all sides of Israel --- not Shapiro's time, I would guess.
Wow, how the Big Dog has fallen in the estimation of the faithful. It's kind of interesting how in thrall they still are to Obama yet I can't see his policy handbook winning over a majority of Democratic voters in the hands of another candidate. Newsom is a nonstarter with 80% of Americans; he's just too oleaginous for most of the country and California is a dystopia unless your last name is Iger. Where is Governor Andy??
There’s some good analysis here - but the main point is not that certain scenarios produce mediocre candidates - it’s that all we have are mediocre candidates.
Obama is an impossible comparison for any candidate - and there is no one in the field with anything like his talent. Pundits tend to downgrade “candidate quality” as a factor, but Obama has set an absurd standard, and the ordinariness of most humans is what we are left with.
We yearn for promising replacements - Pete, Newsome, Ossoff, AOC - but they will never measure up because they do not have that combination of substance, skill and appeal that spoiled us.
The splintered polling is to be expected and is unlikely to change much as the 2028 process nears. The last 3 D nominees were incredibly poor in overall candidate quality (with strengths here and there of course), and this is the norm, for both parties.
The sad thing is that I do think we have/had several Democrats with the raw charisma and political instinct of Obama, but instead of nurturing and mentoring them, the DNC leadership sees them as a threat and actively works against them. AOC showed so much promise and could have advised on how to grow into a politician ready for statewide or nationwide appeal. Unfortunately instead, her growth has been stunted and she hasn't advanced beyond her original niche. I bet Mamdani will go the same way.
Remember how badly Michelle Obama performed when she was first on the national stage? But she got media training and mentorship from Obama's team and now she's beloved by everyone. I really wish Barack would be a more active mentor in his post-term years, I frankly feel pretty frustrated that he's basically peaced out of politics.
Oh - and as far as improving, such as Michelle - I agree in her case. But it’s fascinating to me how high level politicians mostly don’t improve over time. It always shocked me that Kamala had the one great debate in ‘24, but right after that was interviewed on television and went right back to her norm.
I agree with you that mentoring rarely happens in this context - I think that potential mentors like Obama just don’t see a candidate to get excited about enough to make the effort.
And my point was - I think the lack of enthusiasm is justified. Mamdani (who can’t be POTUS) and AOC have talent but are totally untested, and it’s not clear to me that they would stand up in the crucible of running for POTUS.
True stars are very rare - and everyone is stuck being compared to a very bright one.
Trump won 2024 because dems were incumbents. Dems will win 2028 because the gop are the incumbents.
The true question is what do dems want to achieve in their next term, to avoid the 2030 midterm red wave and avoiding to loose in 2032 or in 2036 to a new trump? And then they choose their candidate accordingly…
Policies should be discussed, not electability which is pretty irrelevant in 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, etc.
Anyone interested in a taxonomy of politics segments that isn't based on Nate making stuff up and waving his hands about percentages should check out Pew Research.
Why are Gallego, Talarico, or Roy Cooper not mentioned more in these polls? If Talarico or Cooper win in november they should be at the top of the list
The Democrats need an outsider. Just like the Right supported Trum they need an outsider. Or else it is no use, Rubio or Vance will be the next president.
"Reversion to the mean" -- one of my favorite mathy concepts. [:-) My father taught it to me forever ago and I find it continually useful in life. Taleb wrote about that and so did Kahneman. (Re: Newsom's decline in polls.)
I also really liked this: "They’re less ideological than they are partisan, a distinction that sometimes gets lost." Nice! Yes, I'm definitely a lot more partisan than ideological. I think that's an issue that does move elections. Who are you FOR? Whose side are you on? Vote that way. Forget the nitty-gritty.
Very interesting extended analysis of people who still like Biden --- and I'm right in that like-Biden demographic, even though I'm Republican, and I always did like him. Of course I would never have voted for him!!!! What an awful thought, with all his terrible policies crippling our country. But, you know, nice old white man, seemed gentle, well-mannered and calm, always so beautifully turned out, I dismissed all the carry-on about his falling and such as just partisan enemy action, just ageism, just, just. I never accepted there WAS a problem with senility until the morning after the infamous debate, when I watched it, and oops, guess I was wrong. Even after, I liked his determination to hang in there. Strength. So I found that an interesting set of tables here.
I think Biden still benefits from the "he's not Trump" vote; that will fade with time. Hilarious that he is being portrayed as "well-mannered and calm" when his MO for the first two-thirds of his career was that of a self-regarding, thin-skinned blowhard constantly overselling his accomplishments. First in his class!
If the “resistance libs” are the wing of the party who thing nothing is actually wrong with the democratic brand, nothing was actually wrong with Biden and it’s he who was wronged, not the democratic voters who were lied to about his cognitive decline and robbed of a chance to select our nominee in 2024, and that the only reason we got Trump 2.0 AND PUSHED OUR COUNTRY TO THE BRINK of complete distraction was because “everyone is being mean to the old guy and the black women and they need a scoldin” then left and center in the party need to have a cease fire for two years unite against them because the far left and the blue dogs have far more in common with each other than whatever the hell that wing is.
Both the left and the abundance would love a cease fire between them - the problem is the terms. The left would want the “compromise” candidate to be AOC, while the abundance dems would want someone like Buttigieg. The result is not really a compromise at all, just an argument about what the compromise should be.
I am on the record as saying I would prefer either of AOC OR Buttigieg to Newsom, since I think the democrats have a communication problem more than a policy problem, but I’m in the minority. Most AOC fans won’t want Buttigieg, and vice versa.
Buttigieg is definitely NOT the "Abundance" candidate. "Abundance" is all about getting things, done, and Buttigieg's term as Transportation Secretary was an unabashed disaster.
Examples? "Disaster" is pretty strong, and you even think it was "unabashed".
No problem: As one summary put it, "MIA during a supply chain crisis, neglecting critical FAA upgrades and air traffic controller shortages, contributing to a January 2023 NOTAM outage disrupting 11,000 flights, mismanaging $1.2 trillion in infrastructure funds, with a 2023 GAO report highlighting delays that stalled vital transit projects."
Here's a rundown from The Hill:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3883037-transportation-post-has-become-political-nightmare-for-buttigieg/
And here's a rundown from Axios:
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/12/buttigieg-faa-transportation-crises
The articles are from 2023 with Republicans whining about common sorts of things that happen in the Transportation Dept. If they want to go on the record about how things are now they might have a shred of credibility.
Having emergencies isn't the issue given the size of the US transportation infrastructure.
The entire article from "The Point" that you pasted without attribution is a MAGA hit piece - the Spirit / JetBlue analysis is hilarious, as is the complaint about paternity leave.
For a more specific example, the cited GAO report is an analysis of funds allocated in Feb 2023 and the report was dated May 2023, it seems silly to claim it proves that Buttigieg mismanaged anything in those two months. Instead it is actually an advisory piece that suggests key areas for attention, and the progress tracker documents that DoT actually addressed the issues.
So no, not really "unabashed disaster". Just normal everyday DoT stuff. And normal everyday partisan ankle biting.
The NOTAM mess was the result of a long period of disregard for modernizing the FAA, not the least of which was Trump's eternal promise for "Transportation week", but never delivering any actual proposal, let alone getting a bill.
I'll read up on the other items. Thanks!
(Edit : to be clear, I think Buttigieg is a nice guy, but small town mayor is not actually qualification to run a department the size and importance of the Transportation Dept.)
So what was actually wrong with Biden? That he was old? Nate has an irrational hate of Biden which does not really align with the public opinion. Biden is considered a pretty middle of the road president by the scholars.
If Biden had been a good president then Trump would not have won in '24.
That was his whole point, to end Trump and restore the soul of the nation. He failed miserably. We have had the worst president in US history twice now and one of the worst in between. It’s been a rough decade.
He is definitely not one of the worst. He is considered middle of the pack by presidential scholars.
It's too soon to take the opinion of "presidential scholars" with anything other than a giant grain of salt. After all, they are part of academia and almost certainly share a common set of biases that are exaggerated by the fact that they (like the rest of us) are living through a second Trump administration.
By 2050 or so we'll have a better view of the long term consequences, and the scholars that study presidents will be well placed to put things in context.
In the meantime "Trump won in '24" is damning enough for me to rank him as one of the worst. If Trump does end up destroying our democracy I think you will need to put Biden at the bottom (right above trump) since it is his fault that Trump is president now.
This will change as we get more time. And middle of pack is not great in recent history. He’s an abject failure because he failed his promises. Did not restore the soul of the nation, did not stop Trumpism, did not serve as a transition for the Democrat party. I could give a damn what scholars currently think. When we have more hindsight we will properly rank Biden, and he’s one of the worst, especially in modern history. I’m sure right after the Buchanan presidency they were hedging their bets on how bad he was doing, today he’s the worst.
I mostly blame voters. They fucked it all up by electing a Nazi
Yes, he was old, and his cognitive decline was serious enough to make him unfit to be the leader of the country. A fact that everyone eventually faced, even if he did somewhat bitterly. Holding on to power for your own personal sake too long at the expense of a nation is a damning thing. Like a parent who refuses to give up driving and crashes their car, except in this case the car is an entire country. He was a fairly good president, not epic but he did as good as we could have expected given the shit sandwich he had on his hands, but he gets to be judged by the ultimate consequences of his actions, and the ultimate consequences of his actions include Donald Trump. But honestly I don’t have any ill will towards him, anymore than I would a parent or grandparent who had early onset dementia. This isn’t really about Biden, it’s about the totality of how the end of his presidency was handled by the establishment, and the utter failure of leadership at every step of the game, including the refusal to give their voters a chance to decide. Had the democratic base actually voted to nominate Kamala Harris, I think she would have won, as flawed as a candidate as she is. But voters don’t like being “daddy knows best” by the octengarian ruling class.
The parent crashing the car is Trump though. None of it would have happened if Harris won which was totally possible
Trump 2024 IS Biden’s legacy, and no one who refuses to accept that should be anywhere near the process of deciding the party’s future
Biden also doesn’t have dementia. If he had age related decline it didn’t affect his governance nearly to the same extent that Trump’s does
“Better than Trump” means nothing. Whatever he has, it was clear to everyone who was willing to look objectively that he was not fit to be president. What alienated voters the most wasn’t that, it was the gaslighting - like this comment. Telling voters to ignore what’s in front of their eyes because you don’t think it’s fair is the quickest way to lose elections. You clearly represent the wing of the Democratic Party who doesn’t care about winning elections
It wasn’t obvious at all. This is what the press wanted you to believe
Did you watch that debate in '24? It was obvious that he was struggling badly. I didn't need the press to tell me what my own eyes made clear.
One thing I could think about was how badly he handled the border crisis and that alone alienated many immigrants.
I didn't like Biden that much because he promised to "heal the difference" but ended up embracing the progressive wing of the party. Bad timing pushing a lot of those ideas when normal folks increasingly struggled with their personal finances
The economy was better than it is now though
People couldn't see the future but they did experience the crash and hyperinflation in 2022/2023.
The inflation was already lower than today in 2024
How does a worse time in 2026 change people's perception on Biden in 2024?
Yeah he was old, unfit to serve another term, and signaled he was not going to run for another term by being a transition candidate. He basically lied and then acted like we were all delusional because of his key lie about running again. His justice department acted incredibly slow in prosecuting Trump. Not a single mile of rural broadband was laid before his term was up because of the capricious rules that dragged out the approval process. The bill he touted as one of the largest investments in the US stalled in its implementation. (Read abundance, for all Nate’s calling it a critique of California’s failures, it’s more a critique of Democratic governance, particularly CA and particularly the failed Biden administration). My biggest qualms about all of Biden, is he was touting the legislation getting passed as the biggest achievement while barely anything was actually happening because of the legislation. His admin was very Trumpy in that regard.
He pardoned his family. Yes, he should have always done the right thing because in the face of Trump the right thing was what mattered (broken promise to restore soul of the nation). I can go on, and I’m a loyal dem voter and I was going to vote for Biden over Trump knowing he was going to lose. Nate’s problem with Biden is valid, and it’s Biden’s defenders who are delusional.
And more importantly, Biden and his admin claimed he was one of the most consequential presidencies in US history. And, even more importantly, in the face of Trump he needed to be one of the best presidents, not just a mediocre, inconsequential in your terms or one of the bottom 5 in my terms. So no matter what, Nate is right to criticize the heck out of Biden, he’s how we are teetering on the edge of authoritarianism and the collapse of American Democracy as we’ve come to know it.
Generally, I think it's too early to look to who the Democratic party will nominate for 2028. It's like asking people now what they want for Xmas dinner. The focus is more now, more on the midterms, more on affordability. Or like asking a 20 year old if they want to have kids if and when they get married. The question AND the answer is premature.
Secondly, I think there is a failure to recognize how large the percentage is of independents (aka "unaffiliated" voters). I think independents are largely "undecided" so they are the key population in the key 10-15 states that have the potential to determine the midterms and the 2028 elections.
So the polling doesn't focus on the data that is relevant.
BTW, I don't think Kamala has a prayer nor does Buttigieg in 2028. I think the future is foggy!
"The question AND the answer is premature." I think this is a very thoughtful point. It's like asking kids what they want to be when they grow up --- just to laugh at their inappropriate and unlikely choices, I suppose. Not a nice thing to do, to ask questions that can't possibly be answered sensibly at the time.
The future is always foggy, always dependent on the wild and free present. Nate Silver doesn't think Trump's people can do a Three-peat, but he does caveat that with the possibility that Trump could get more popular (even than he is now, which I think Nate underestimates). A lot of people have started saying the Dems need a Trump (because winning is the thing) ----- a populist, like Bernie, but maybe not a socialist. Newsom, no populist, could drop from sight entirely, like Jeb Bush.
While my initial impression is to agree, Nate addressed the "timeliness" of this conversation fairly early on in this article by including a link to a piece he wrote years ago and stating:
"But these early polls do have some predictive power, believe it or not."
Regarding Biden and his legacy, I can’t speak for Newsom because I can’t read his mind, but I think the main reason why some people people refuse to forget Biden and move on is because they genuinely believe what they say about him.
I happen to be one of those people. If I was a politician and you asked me who I consider the best president of the 21st century, I’d say Biden. Not as some sort of political move to appease someone, but because that’s what I actually believe.
Biden's main lasting accomplishment was paving the way for Trump's 2nd term because he decided to run for re-election. We're all paying the price for that.
What would you say are the top 3 to 5 points in favor of Biden being a good or great president? Just in your mind, not through some objective lens.
I ask not to start an argument but because I’m curious. I’m personally sour on his presidency but you tend to read more negative coverage than positive coverage of almost any politician. It could be that I’m forgetting some good points.
No matter what your answers are, I won’t argue. I’d just like to know.
I could try to remember specific accomplishments off the top of my head, such as ending the war in Afghanistan, but I mostly just like that A, he was by far the most leftist president of the post-Carter era and B, he was a competent administrator who knew how to govern effectively.
And even when his declining abilities forced him to check halfway out, the country was still fine because he surrounded himself with competent people who could govern for him.
I appreciate your response.
Ok fair enough - but did you want him to run for a second term?
At the time, I wanted him to run because my top priority was beating Trump, and I thought that Biden was the best suited person for the task because he was the only politician with a track record of beating Trump in elections.
In hindsight, knowing what I know now, I obviously think he made a mistake. By all accounts, his cognitive abilities fell off a cliff around the midterms, which means that he should have resigned from the Presidency then. If not, then at the very least, he should have announced in 2022 that he was not going to run again.
Shapiro could win a general election, but will never win the primary.
After seeing how California has performed under his stewardship, with businesses leaving and losing congressional seats due to population declines, it’s almost impossible to envision how Newsome would make a coherent policy argument in the general. Maybe his good looks and pretty hair can get him through the primary, but color me skeptical that Dem primary voters are *that* shallow.
Can we all agree that Kamala has precisely zero chance of winning an open primary race?
California's economy has grown quite a bit under Newsom.
And our population has not dropped all that much. 39.4 million to 39.3 million.
As for Harris, the Dems allocate delegates proportionally by congressional district. I expect Harris can get more votes than people think, but probably not a majority of the delegates.
"High Speed Rail" is going to be Newsom's version of Trump's green reflecting pool. Newsom took over the Governorship promising to "fix" it. Eight years and tens of billions of dollars later not a foot of track has been laid and a court just ruled that his latest plan (a line "from just outside Bakersfield to just outside Merced") violates state law. The next Governor is going to have no choice but to shut it down, just as Newsom tries to launch his Presidential campaign.
There is a slight parallel to the reflecting pool in that the biggest messes of the Cal HSR project are because of decisions Jerry Brown made, and unreasonable goals and milestones in the state proposition, none of which is Newsom's fault.
Similarly, the reflecting pool has been a problem for a long time. But Trump took hands-on control of the reflecting pool with no-bid contracts and Trump's design decisions made the project fail.
In contrast, CaHSR is and had been running the project with professional engineers, and while there have been issues there is no indication that the rail will turn into a pool of algae.
More details about the court ruling you mention would be interesting. I can't find anything like that.
Perhaps you are referring to CaHSR's decision to stop fighting Trump to force delivery of the money that was legally appropriated? They withdrew voluntarily after Trump lost his request to have the case thrown out.
Finally, there is no point in laying track before the crossings are done. Track is currently planed to hit the ground this Fall, but feel free to be skeptical.
My bad - it was the Inspector General, not a court, that ruled the plan violates state law.
Thanks! I think that works.
So it isn't a ruling. It is a review of the draft business plan and says it is missing required pieces.
And the final report addressed some of these issues but definitely sidestepped items that were out of the new scope.
However this doesn't appear to be any sort of violation of law as they are only required to provide a report and have the IG review it.
https://stran.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2026-04/oig-hsr-handout-for-senate-transportation-committee.pdf
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-utilities-code/puc-sect-185033/
The violation is that it stops “outside Bakersfield” and “outside Merced.” It really is a train from nowhere to nowhere.
There's a typo in the CNN/SSRS table--Biden cannot be viewed favorably by 30% of the total population and 42% of Whites, 53% of Blacks and 40% of Hispanics. It's actually 23% of Whites, the 40% is for "people of color". Another minor quibble is comparing Biden's current 30% favorability rating to his 38% approval rating when he left office is apples-to-oranges. His favorability rating was 33% when he left office.
The important point is neglecting the "no opinion" and "never heard of him" misses the main point. Biden's low favorability among swing groups is disengagement, not unfavorable views. Only 13% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans had no opinion about Biden, but 23% of Independent/Other did. There were similar levels among voters with latent Democratic votes: Moderates (18%), 18-29 (23%) and non-college (17%). These voters didn't sour on Biden, they forgot him.
Another point is that the racial, ideology, education, engagement and age have very little information. All break down close to the partisan splits within these groups.
The key statistic I take away is that if Gavin Newsom embraced Biden and got every single voter with a favorable view of Biden, and also every single voter with no opinion, he'd lose with 46% of the vote. Any Democrat's path to a popular majority requires either (a) winning votes from people with unfavorable views of Biden, or (b) people changing their views of Biden before November 2028.
I don't see why Biden is relevant at all. People aren't all that angry about the "gaslighting." It was a confusing situation and as a Republican even I didn't think Biden was senile. It was an electoral calamity for everyone, and we had it, and now we're elsewhen. People here are saying NONE of the known Dem hopefuls are likely to win and I agree. The Dems need someone coming down an escalator in 2027, a surprise, preferably with charisma, and I bet they get one or more of them. Someone we don't know about yet.
I really don't think that '28 is going to be THAT hard for a democrat to win. American's tire of the party in charge, and right now that's the republicans. Trump won't be on the ballot in '28, and most of his replacements will be saddled with Trump blowback without Trump charisma.
Obviously the democrats should still try to pick a good candidate, but the idea that they have to pick a once in a generation talent to win in '28 doesn't seem right to me.
That being said, they probably DO need a really good pick to win again in '32.
I agree there's not much anger at Biden among swing voters and also that disengagement is worse for establishment Democrats than rage--you can rebut anger, it's energy you can use, you can't re-recruit voters who have checked out by offering a familiar face. The checked-out bloc skews young, nonwhite and independent--exactly the demographics Democrats need to win. An attractive outsider is desperately needed.
But Bruce Springsteen warned us not to "waste your summer prayin' in vain for a savior to rise from these streets." Electable outsiders are rare--Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton--and generally emerge to challenge incumbents from the other party. Barack Obama was a semi-outsider who beat a non-incumbent, but also an extraordinary candidate--once-in-a-generation if you're lucky. Most unknown candidates are unknown for good reason. Leaderless fields generally lead to parties flocking to safety--Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Biden.
Gavin Newsom may be shaping up to be the last establishment candidate standing with Tim Walz and Andrew Cuomo collapsed and Kamala Harris uncertain. Josh Shapiro and Pete Buttigieg are borderline and the rest of the field seem like real longshots at the moment.
Hey, there's always Fetterman. (Heh, heh. I'm almost not kidding.) He IS a Democrat, sort of. A character, independent, almost charismatic ---
Fetterman would be ideal if not for his stroke and heart issues. Solid electoral success in a swing state, strong appeal to moderates and anti-Trump Republicans, reputation for independence and common sense, strong on core Democratic issues but not on board for some of the more progressive positions that most alarm conservative Democrats and independents. Progressives would be angry and a few would stay home, particularly the anti-Israel and extreme anti-Trumpers, but almost all would get on board to prevent JD Vance or another Republican.
But the combination of serious mental and physical health problems would likely disqualify him.
Agreed. I am more optimistic about his stroke problem, though; he seems to have recovered quite well, considering the severity. Though I listened carefully to a recent speech and there are some communication issues still.
I have been thinking and saying for some time that Fetterman wanted to turn Republican, and that is still possible ---- but suddenly realized he's got a Joe Manchin thing going. I've read that every senator looks in the mirror and sees the President of the United States, and I'd say Fetterman is hoping for a draft.
He would need a good vice-president, though! These pols never do that, however: indeed, they go the other way, as Biden did, and choose someone completely unsuitable, as if for a sort of insurance against dying. I've seen it again and again with governors. Their lieutenants are often totally inappropriate persons from disability and DEI lists --- because they are so sure nothing will happen to them. Like Eliot Spitzer.
If the three factions or leftists, abundance, and resistance, and Obama cuts across all three factions (and also gets love for independents) - isnt the play to signal a "return to Obama?" He is clearly the most popular living former (or current) president, his time in office was clearly more successful and had more lasting impact than anyone since Bush Sr if not Reagan - doesnt it makes a ton of sense for an establishment candidate to run away from Biden and back towards the Obama legacy?
Very noteworthy posting. I am a most happy subscriber. I wish Mark Kelly were viewed more favorably. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I also think a Mark Kelly and Gretchen Whitmer ticket would be wonderful. She has been a great governor for Michigan. Probably just wishing and hoping...
Kelly is a good guy. I was hoping for him as Harris's VP.
It may be that his relative lack of charisma will be an advantage in 2028 as a sort of Anti-Trumpism marker.
As you said, get over Biden. There's simply no virtue in continuing to dissect him. The vast majority of democrats have no such interest. And probably a near majority of registered democrats doesn't even know who Newsom is! And why no mention of Pritzker who could actually himself and his family fund a national campaign, primary and general, when cash will again be king....and all the other candidates have next to know cash...at least for now. And while I'm at it, stop talking about AOC, Harris and Buttigieg, there's not the remotest chance any of them will be the nominee.
Maybe AOC --- she DOES have some charisma, which none of the other possibles have on the Dem side. I don't see how it could be Pritzker: he's WAAAY too ugly and morbidly obese. A non-starter on those grounds like Chris Christie ended up being. And Josh Shapiro winning a Democrat primary, while being an observant, Israel-supporting Jew? I just can't imagine the Dem primary voters letting him through. The general election, maybe. The primaries, no.
AOC's charisma is strictly for the left of the left...Pritzker lost a lot of weight...and is much better looking.... plus, his billions....in dollars...not pounds.... Shapiro wins in PA... a deeply purple state.... much more representative of the country...
I agree with both your points about AOC and Shapiro --- AOC could get thru the primaries (if the establishment didn't block her like they did repeatedly to Bernie) but surely not the general election; the opposite for Shapiro. All this war raging on all sides of Israel --- not Shapiro's time, I would guess.
Wow, how the Big Dog has fallen in the estimation of the faithful. It's kind of interesting how in thrall they still are to Obama yet I can't see his policy handbook winning over a majority of Democratic voters in the hands of another candidate. Newsom is a nonstarter with 80% of Americans; he's just too oleaginous for most of the country and California is a dystopia unless your last name is Iger. Where is Governor Andy??
There’s some good analysis here - but the main point is not that certain scenarios produce mediocre candidates - it’s that all we have are mediocre candidates.
Obama is an impossible comparison for any candidate - and there is no one in the field with anything like his talent. Pundits tend to downgrade “candidate quality” as a factor, but Obama has set an absurd standard, and the ordinariness of most humans is what we are left with.
We yearn for promising replacements - Pete, Newsome, Ossoff, AOC - but they will never measure up because they do not have that combination of substance, skill and appeal that spoiled us.
The splintered polling is to be expected and is unlikely to change much as the 2028 process nears. The last 3 D nominees were incredibly poor in overall candidate quality (with strengths here and there of course), and this is the norm, for both parties.
We should stop being surprised.
The sad thing is that I do think we have/had several Democrats with the raw charisma and political instinct of Obama, but instead of nurturing and mentoring them, the DNC leadership sees them as a threat and actively works against them. AOC showed so much promise and could have advised on how to grow into a politician ready for statewide or nationwide appeal. Unfortunately instead, her growth has been stunted and she hasn't advanced beyond her original niche. I bet Mamdani will go the same way.
Remember how badly Michelle Obama performed when she was first on the national stage? But she got media training and mentorship from Obama's team and now she's beloved by everyone. I really wish Barack would be a more active mentor in his post-term years, I frankly feel pretty frustrated that he's basically peaced out of politics.
Oh - and as far as improving, such as Michelle - I agree in her case. But it’s fascinating to me how high level politicians mostly don’t improve over time. It always shocked me that Kamala had the one great debate in ‘24, but right after that was interviewed on television and went right back to her norm.
I agree with you that mentoring rarely happens in this context - I think that potential mentors like Obama just don’t see a candidate to get excited about enough to make the effort.
And my point was - I think the lack of enthusiasm is justified. Mamdani (who can’t be POTUS) and AOC have talent but are totally untested, and it’s not clear to me that they would stand up in the crucible of running for POTUS.
True stars are very rare - and everyone is stuck being compared to a very bright one.
Trump won 2024 because dems were incumbents. Dems will win 2028 because the gop are the incumbents.
The true question is what do dems want to achieve in their next term, to avoid the 2030 midterm red wave and avoiding to loose in 2032 or in 2036 to a new trump? And then they choose their candidate accordingly…
Policies should be discussed, not electability which is pretty irrelevant in 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, etc.
Anyone interested in a taxonomy of politics segments that isn't based on Nate making stuff up and waving his hands about percentages should check out Pew Research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/06/10/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/
But I guess at least Nate is trying to move on from the river and the ocean, or whatever his last attempted coinage was.
Why are Gallego, Talarico, or Roy Cooper not mentioned more in these polls? If Talarico or Cooper win in november they should be at the top of the list
Talarico has to win first, but if he does, I’m sure he will be on the top of the list.
I would be careful about Gallego. Some speculation that his friendship with Eric Swalwell means he is somehow implicated in that scandal.
Cooper won’t run for president. He really has no interest. He ran for Senate to help flip the state. He’s a team player in that way.
Gallego is interesting and so is Talarico (if he wins). So, good pointing them out.
What, Six-gender Presbyterian Talarico? No. He's like Buttigieg: no one knows what sex he is.
It must hurt being that stupid
If you click through to the underlying article they are mentioned sometimes.
In the all others chunk below the 14 higher ranked potential candidates.
The Democrats need an outsider. Just like the Right supported Trum they need an outsider. Or else it is no use, Rubio or Vance will be the next president.
How about Graham Platner or Adul Al Sayed .
"Reversion to the mean" -- one of my favorite mathy concepts. [:-) My father taught it to me forever ago and I find it continually useful in life. Taleb wrote about that and so did Kahneman. (Re: Newsom's decline in polls.)
I also really liked this: "They’re less ideological than they are partisan, a distinction that sometimes gets lost." Nice! Yes, I'm definitely a lot more partisan than ideological. I think that's an issue that does move elections. Who are you FOR? Whose side are you on? Vote that way. Forget the nitty-gritty.
Very interesting extended analysis of people who still like Biden --- and I'm right in that like-Biden demographic, even though I'm Republican, and I always did like him. Of course I would never have voted for him!!!! What an awful thought, with all his terrible policies crippling our country. But, you know, nice old white man, seemed gentle, well-mannered and calm, always so beautifully turned out, I dismissed all the carry-on about his falling and such as just partisan enemy action, just ageism, just, just. I never accepted there WAS a problem with senility until the morning after the infamous debate, when I watched it, and oops, guess I was wrong. Even after, I liked his determination to hang in there. Strength. So I found that an interesting set of tables here.
I think Biden still benefits from the "he's not Trump" vote; that will fade with time. Hilarious that he is being portrayed as "well-mannered and calm" when his MO for the first two-thirds of his career was that of a self-regarding, thin-skinned blowhard constantly overselling his accomplishments. First in his class!
Self-regarding thin-skinned blowhard constantly overselling accomplishments for two thirds of his career...
Hmm.
Orange hair and 100% of the person's career make it tricky to extrapolate to who might win in 2028.
I get that whataboutism is the coin of the realm here, but the previous commenter's phrase describing Biden was, and I quote:
"But, you know, nice old white man, seemed gentle, well-mannered and calm, always so beautifully turned out (...)"
Trump wasn't mentioned at all. But you proved my point for me, so thanks.