Should Biden run again. And, if not, what's Plan B?

[stevenkesslar]

This was actually the last thread I started on Company of Men before the political forum involuntarily retired.  (Maybe that answers my question about Biden? 🤫 ) 

So I thought it would be interesting to see how it goes here.  Since a few of you already posted on this question over there, I also added the second part about Plan B.  A lot of Biden supporters or sympathizers said he's a great guy.  But his age is showing.  So it's time for him to move on.  Speaking as a Democrat, that begs a big question.  How do we avoid electing Trump II, or Culture Warrior in Chief Ron DeSantis?

My answer was, and is, YES.  Biden should run again.  I'll list three reasons.

First, it increases the odds that we won't elect Trump or some other Culture Warrior In Chief.  Some people think it's voodoo.  But I overweight Alan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency.  It's a system he developed with a leading Russian seismologist geared toward using mostly objective data to detect patterns which help predict earthquakes - in this case, political earthquakes.  Since 1984 he has guessed the winner of every Presidential election correctly, and months in advance.  The other key component of his system is that he believes voters are smart.  They make decisions based on things that matter:  the economy, war and peace, major accomplishments, leadership, big scandals.  So having the power of the incumbency and avoiding an intraparty brawl are two of the 13 things that help determine victory.  He says once you lose six of these 13 keys, you're done.  So this takes away two keys from the Democrats.  Incumbency, for sure.  And if Biden does not run, there will likely be a party nomination fight that could be very divisive.

Second, the most likely outcome no matter what happens is Kamala becomes the new leader to face Don or Ron.  Which is what lots of Democrats are afraid of.  If you leave Biden out, the polls show she's the preference of up to 1 in 3 Democrats.  The next tier - usually Sanders and Secretary Pete - are far behind.  Like maybe 10 %.  So who knows what will happen.  But if Biden steps aside, the most likely outcome is she replaces him.  On the other hand, if Biden/Harris wins and he dies of a heart attack in 2016, she replaces him.  On the other hand, if they both serve out a second term, she'll run to replace him.  All roads seem to lead to Kamala.  Under any of these circumstances, I'm fine with her leading when the time comes.  That said, like many Democrats, I'd rather not risk it now.  We do know that in the last century there were six contested nominations in the party that held the Presidency.  In all six cases, most recently Bush in 1992, that party lost.  So it would definitely be better for Biden to step aside than to be forced out in a primary, like LBJ was.

Third, I'm not sure I even understand the logic.  Yes, he's old.  If he were clearly senile, or a joke like George Santos, that would matter.  But the idea among at least some Democrats goes like this.  "You've won all these bipartisan legislative victories and done a great job.  But you're too old."  The first statement kind of disproves the second.  With Ukraine, even moreso.  Age - aka experience and relationships - did put Biden in a position to build a global coalition I don't think Trump, or someone younger like Kamala or Secretary Pete, could have built.  The biggest fear is that Biden will lose us the 2024 elections.  Like Trump lost lots of 2022 races for his election denying partners in crime.  But if that's the fear, didn't Biden just help pull a rabbit out of a hat?  Obama, who was younger and dynamic, lost 63 House seats in his first midterm.  Biden lost 14, and gained a handful of Senate and Governor seats. 

One poll showed that, among Democrats, about half want Biden to run, about a quarter are not sure, and about a quarter are against him running.  I think it's a given that, if he steps aside, anyone running to replace him will be less popular.  And have less experience.  How does that make winning in 2024 easier?

I've never bought the idea that Biden was the only Democrat who could beat Trump in 2020.  To go back to Lichtman, he says Presidential races are thumbs up or thumbs down votes on the party in power.  Trump was going to lose, anyway, he said.  So if we wanted someone else to lead the charge, 2020 was the time to fight that out.  We did.  And Biden won.  

A lot of this depends on your assumptions about other BIG THINGS THAT MATTER.  If we're in a deep recession in Fall 2024 and Putin has won in Ukraine in a way that makes Biden look like a weak loser, Lichtman's system says Biden would probably have at least six keys against him, anyway.  Which is enough to lose.  If the economy and stock market are booming, and Putin lost or is barely holding on in Ukraine, Lichtman's system could suggest the Democrats have enough going for them to win, anyway.  Then a younger President than Biden - presumably Harris, but maybe not - could win in 2024 and run as the incumbent in 2028.  But his key point would be that losing an incumbent and inviting an internal party fight is simply not going to help, at best.  At worst, it hands the Presidency back to Trump.  Or the other Florida Culture Warrior In Chief.

Should Biden run?  And if he does step aside, what's the Plan B for the Democrats to keep the Presidency?

[njf]

I don’t know what’s the plan B is yet. But isn’t that the goal of a primary?

I can tell you what I am looking for. A populist in economics and a moderate on social issues, and an isolationist in international issues. I don’t want fringes on the right or the left. There are some inherent contradictions of what I want. I maybe ask too much lol.

[pirocafan]

Reviewing the premises stated by the original post, not sure why this is even a question. Or are we not saying the quiet thing out loud?

[alvnv]

3 hours ago, njf said:

I don’t know what’s the plan B is yet. But isn’t that the goal of a primary?

I can tell you what I am looking for. A populist in economics and a moderate on social issues, and an isolationist in international issues. I don’t want fringes on the right or the left. There are some inherent contradictions of what I want. I maybe ask too much lol.

This is not the time for isolationists

[TotallyOz]

I have never loved Biden but I do think he is OK. He has never gotten me excited. But, I do know that the last election, he was the best hope the Democrats had for winning. I can't think of anyone who could successfully replace him. But, they always find someone. Trump is the unknown factor and the one that troubles me. His support is wild but many will lean toward Biden, and I'm not sure if those in his party would switch sides for Harris. Pete should have a bigger role in this administration. That would have propped him up for a run and perhaps why they didn't do that. For some reasons Democrats like to pass the baton instead of going for who would win the most support. If that is the case, Harris is the likely nominee. I really liked the Castro brothers in the last cycle.

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, pirocafan said:

Reviewing the premises stated by the original post, not sure why this is even a question. Or are we not saying the quiet thing out loud?

I know I stated the question in a complicated way.  But it is a complicated question.   As I said, I posted this on Company Of Men.  And the predictable reaction was, "Biden should not run," for a bunch of reasons.  But that still leaves us with:   okay, what then?  @njf's answer is a good one:  it leaves us with a primary.  That is what primaries are for.

I'm not sure what you mean precisely about not saying the quiet thing out loud.  That could mean at least two things.  One, Biden's mental decline is more serious than thought.  Although that was not clear at the SOTU address. Or, two, lots of Talking Heads thinks Kamala would be a disaster heading the 2024 ticket.  Many of the same Talking Heads thought Biden would just embarrass himself by running in 2020.  I for one could live with something like a Kamala/Secretary Pete ticket in 2024, if Biden surprises us all and steps aside.  I'd vote for Kamala in a primary in part in the hopes that my party would avoid a bitter and divisive primary fight by rallying around The Veep and The Gay Guy everybody likes   (Well, Republicans don't like either of them).

What did you mean exactly by the quiet thing?

The main thing I keep coming back to is this.  If it ain't broke, why fix it?  So it depends in part on whether you think Biden is broke.  I don't see him as broke.  And if he does break, the likely fix is Kamala, anyway.  As I said above, that's true whether he steps aside now, or gets re-elected and dies in office, or he wins in 2024 and ends his term in 2028.  The one scenario in my mind that likely finishes Kamala's political career is if Biden/Harris loses in 2024.  But even then she may run in 2028.  It is objective to say she is unproven as a national or international leader.  And her run in 2020 didn't go so well.  Then again, Biden's prior Presidential runs didn't go so well, either.

If I flip that last paragraph around, I think the best argument for Biden stepping aside now is that it lets Democrats pick a new generation of leaders in 2024, not 2028.  And the premise I would have to add is that by Nov. 2024 the economy is good, the stock market is good, jobs are good, and Democrats have the wind at our backs.  And Putin has either lost, or is at least not winning.  So in that happier world Democrats could afford to lose an incumbent.  Which I think is just historically a downside - as Lichtman argues. And still win almost no matter who we nominate.  That would be a happy outcome, for me.

I'll add one other thing I put in the COM thread that just further complicates things.  But for me, as a liberal Democrat, it is happy news.  At about 42:00 in this hour long interview between Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol and centrist worrier AB Stoddard, she goes off about the looming public conflict among Democrats over:  1) replacing Pelosi, and 2) replacing Biden.  That interview was from last Summer.  I like AB a lot as a solid go-to center/right thinker.  But she was pretty much wrong about everything she said.  The supposed public fight between progressive and moderate Democrats over replacing Pelosi never happened.  Which I think was a good thing.  Let the public drama be MTG saying whack job things and screaming, "Liar!" instead.  Same with Biden, in my mind.  Let the Democrats seem calm and orderly and on course.  Let Biden tease Republicans about really unpopular things they say about wildly popular programs for seniors.  Let the Republicans have their Ron/Don/MAGA shit show instead. 

Again, all this follows from my premise that Biden is not broke.  AB Stoddard clearly thought last Summer that Biden was broke.

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I'm not sure if those in his party would switch sides for Harris. Pete should have a bigger role in this administration. That would have propped him up for a run and perhaps why they didn't do that. For some reasons Democrats like to pass the baton instead of going for who would win the most support.

This is a subset of my point above about the potential risks and rewards of a 2024 Democratic primary.

There's a good argument that Biden inherently pissed on Kamala and promoted Pete in his choices.  Yeah, The Veep is more powerful than a Cabinet Secretary.  But Biden gave her immigration.  Which was almost 100 % sure to be divisive and unpopular.  No matter what she tried to do, the likely outcome is gridlock and complaints.  Meanwhile, Pete gets to dole out gazillions of dollars and talk about how he worked with Republican Guvs and Mayors to build bridges and roads. 

To offset that, I just read a right wing article about how he is the worst Transportation Secretary ever, bar none.  Because all he gave us was supply chain problems and train wrecks.  While he and his hubby took off paid parent time.  Even moderate Republican politicos wonder whether America is ready for a POTUS who kisses a guy on stage. So how Kamala and Pete would play out in a primary is anyone's guess.  But the polls right now say she gets maybe 25 to 30 % of the vote.  And Pete gets about 10 to 15%.  The #2 in most polls is Bernie Sanders, in the high teens.  So then you have to factor in that we'll redo the primary fight between progressives and more Establishment liberals/moderates.  Who Republicans will say are all socialists.

My best guess is Biden tried to create an orderly transition in his 2020 choices.  Kamala got to be Veep.  If he dies in office, she will be POTUS.  Pete got what was likely to be a highly visible Cabinet job, if Biden got the infrastructure package he wanted.  Which he did.  So it positioned both of them well.  And Harris/Buttigieg would be a ticket that I'd be excited about.  But the best laid plans - if that is what they were - can always go awry.

There are aspects of 1980's Reagan/Bush that are very similar.  Oldest POTUS ever.  Who polls in 1983 say most people don't want to run again.  Because he's old, and the economy is rocky.  But he runs in 1984, when the economy is better, and wins.  Serves out two terms.  Even though we know in retrospect he ended up actually having dementia.  His # 2 runs to replace him after eight years, and wins.  Democrats should be so lucky!

I know I'm being my typical verbose, or detailed, self.  But an interesting historical side note.  1984 was the first election Lichtman and his Russian partner in voodoo publicly predicted, way in advance.   He said Reagan would win, since almost all his keys worked in Reagan's favor.  In the moment, Reagan was not viewed as a particularly strong incumbent.  So Lichtman tells an anecdote of how Republican political hack Lee Atwater invited him to the White House to game out what would happen if Reagan DID NOT run in 1984.  Lichtman, a lifelong liberal Democrat, says he told Atwater it would hurt Republicans on three of his keys.  They'd lose an incumbent.  They'd lose what he judged to be a charismatic leader.  And they'd gain a primary fight, which could hurt them.  Even so, in retrospect, even if they lost those three things Lichtman would probably argue they'd still only  have five keys out of 13 against them.  As that Broder article I hyperlinked details.  And history says you need six against you to lose. 

So my point is this.  If you make a set of favorable assumptions for Democrats about 2024 - growing economy, a "victory" in Ukraine - Biden could do what Reagan did not.  Step aside.  And Democrats could win, anyway.

[caeron]

I think recent elections have shown that the American electorate is sexist and racist, so white guys still are the best to win an election.

My 85 year old mother and her friends are a good example. They all like Biden. I think he merely doesn't blow chunks like a republican would.

It sucks, but it may well be he's the best chance to hold onto sanity in America. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll resign or die after re-election and we'll get a chance at a president who isn't a fossil.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, caeron said:

I think recent elections have shown that the American electorate is sexist and racist

No shit?   😉   By the way, you left out possibly homophobic, too.  🤫

'Black history is not inferior': Black leaders object to Florida's 'culture war against African Americans'

Pence moves to claim culture war lane before DeSantis gets there  (Note to Mike:  You're too late)

But this is why the question is complicated to me.  Given that Trump, DeSantis, and Pence - in that order - are the only candidates who are not single digit in polls, it seems like the Republican nominee will offer one of three choices in Fall 2024:   1) Traditional Culture War,  2)  Culture War, God's Edition, or  3) Culture War, Sunshine Edition

Since you're making the cautious argument, I'll flip and make the "let's roll the dice" argument.

My caution on this issue surprises me a bit.  I can't say this without sounding self-promoting.  But it does speak to my tolerance for risk.

I was known in my organizing career for picking unwinnable fights.  And then winning.  There was the City Council member who told me privately that publicly attacking all the big banks in town to cough up a $1 million down payment assistance fund prioritizing Black home owners was a great idea.  But they'd never actually do it.  A year later we got $1.2 million, and a permanent citywide coalition of housing advocates.  And, arguably, a US Senator.  Since Jeff Merkley was the lowly head of Portland Habitat For Humanity at the time.  Same city, different lefty.  The Multnomah County Chair, an actual prior Socialist, said privately she could not propose a progressive business income tax on large corporations to fund schools.  Because the business community would run her out of office next election.  We did it anyway.  We won a two year progressive business income tax.  Bev Stein won re-election handily.  Even though the corporations did try to run her out of office for messing with them.  Then she ran for Oregon Guv, and almost won.  It took 20 years for a different Democratic Guv to get a highly popular progressive state income tax on big corporations passed.  And then there was the time we occupied the headquarters of Fannie Mae and got a $1 billion Community Home Buyers Program, which Bill Clinton later turned into a model for Black and Hispanic grassroots wealth creation.  But I digress.

Point being, sometimes the best thing is to say fuck it.  We'll have the courage of our convictions, and go big.  Just like the culture war people do.  Running a Black woman (married to a Jewish White man) and a Gay man (who is married with child, since The Gays went big and won) would be a good way to trump the culture warriors, so to speak. 

If this were 1968, and there were riots in the street that turned off the Silent Majority, that might actually be a really stupid idea.  That time, we got Richard Nixon.  In 2020, polls showed the Silent Majority actually favored Black Lives Matter.   And elected Biden and Harris.  So we may actually have the wind at our backs this time.  Kamala and Pete are despised by the culture warriors.  But that may be because they don't come off like scary radicals.

Either way, it's a gamble.

 

[caeron]

We've not yet had a chance to test the homophobia in a general election, but I'm sure they're homophobic too.

I'm in a wait and see kind of space, since I don't really know who will emerge as a viable alternative to Biden. I hope someone does. I personally like Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she can win.

PS. Didn't know you were a fellow PDXer (I'm out in the burbs, but still). /wave

[pirocafan]

15 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

What did you mean exactly by the quiet thing?

 

Republicans are having a similar discussion. Trump won once and brought people to his side that would not have usually come, largely because of his populist positions on trade, immigration and China. But the truth, the quiet thing that Haley and De Santis don't want to say out loud is that in his case, Trump's petulance and arrogance will not bring suburban women back to the R side of the ballot, not in enough numbers to defeat whatever candidate is on the D side.

With Biden, the quiet part is the fact that his strength was largely not being Trump. Peel that back and you have an elderly man in early stages of dementia with limited control of his emotions, a lifelong habit of racist and sexist comments and actions, and dwindling energy for one of the most demanding jobs on the planet. 

Here's what I meant: can Biden realistically win against anyone but Trump? If Trump is the Republican nominee, Democrats can run a box of tampons with a D stamped on them, they'll win. If Trump loses the nomination, not sure a synthetic candidate like Harris or an incompetent like Buttigieg can win. They have to get lucky and hope another unlikeable like Cruz or Pompeio win, otherwise, Democrats will need to be more creative than Biden. 

My guess is that reinstating Trump on social media is part of a broader effort to rehabilitate him so he'll be the nominee again. Wouldn't be surprised if Democrats start donating to MAGA or if you start seeing Trump on network television again too. 

[lookin]

What Biden brings to the party is a sense of inclusiveness and in the Trump era I think there's nothing more important.  Trump and DeSantis are in a perpetual state of war and have no problem pitting us Americans against one another.  We really can't survive a long-term diet of divisiveness.  So I'm for whoever can get elected and continue a process of healing.

I'm impressed that Biden has steadfastly focused on things that are good for the majority of Americans, with a particular emphasis on those who need a helping hand the most.  Although it's too soon for me to pick a candidate, he's the guy I'll vote for until someone more compassionate and more inclusive comes along.

Biden's biggest liability, in my opinion, is Kamala Harris.  She's not a unifier and I would not be happy seeing her as President.  There may be other Democrats who are not anathema to Independent voters.  I don't have the polling research but I expect such a one exists.

Our divisiveness is best reflected in the pure party-line votes of recent years and that needs to change.  Biden has a reputation for at least trying to reach across the aisle.  I'd go so far as suggesting he consider a moderate socially progressive Republican as his running mate, unless the Senate looks like a 50/50 split.

Whoever can bring us back from the war on one another will get my vote.  And I think Biden has been more effective at bringing folks together that anyone else currently in the running.

If it weren't for the overriding need for inclusivity and healing, and we could afford a full-on progressive candidate, I've got a handful of folks I'd like to see enter the Democratic primary: Clinton (so sue me, but she did win the popular vote) and Sanders and Newsom among them.  But there is an overriding need to pull together and Biden understands that in his bones.

 

[stevenkesslar]

10 hours ago, caeron said:

I'm in a wait and see kind of space, since I don't really know who will emerge as a viable alternative to Biden. I hope someone does. I personally like Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she can win.

PS. Didn't know you were a fellow PDXer (I'm out in the burbs, but still). /wave

I lived and organized in Portland in the 1990's and part of the 00's.  But by 2002 I'd transitioned to being a real whore, rather a political one.  And I was living in San Francisco most of the time.  Oregon is beautiful.

I was a Warren fan boy in 2020.  But I voted for Sanders in the California primary.  Because by that time it was clear Elizabeth was toast.  One of the truly unfathomable things ever to happen in Presidential politics is that Biden won the primaries in Massachusetts and Minnesota in 2020.  Even though he basically had no money or organizing there.  And home state Senators Warren and Klobuchar were also on the ballot.  I viewed that as a spontaneous tidal wave in US politics about what center-leaning Democrats and Independents wanted, and did not want.  That said, my vote for Sanders was essentially saying, "Lean left, Joe.  Lean progressive."  Which I think he has.  He is certainly acting and talking more progressive than Reagan Era Joe Biden. 

Part of my reluctance about redoing the 2020 primary is I don't see what changes.  If Biden runs, and there is a primary, I think he wins.  If he does not run, Harris wins - which many people think is exactly the problem.  Warren in polls is now at like 10 %.  Behind Harris and Sanders and about where Pete is.  So I don't see the point of having a primary that could be divisive, just so we can end up where we started.  The talking heads love the idea of (pick a name like Polis or Whitmer or Newsom) running.  And if Biden were clearly demented and the Democrats lost 60 house seats and the Senate in the midterms, all those Guvs might be running.  But now they've all said they are NOT running.  Whitmer just said she is grateful to Biden for creating the political environment where Democrats like her are winning in their states.

Which, by the way, suggests Biden still has his skill set of reading the national tea leaves and unifying his party intact.  I strongly agree with @lookin that having a POTUS that unifies rather than divides is important.  That said, I don't think any President can really unify America right now.  I view Trump as symptom, not cause.  Biden is at least trying.  His mostly unifying and populist messages during the SOTU address - pointed in part at the disgruntled White working class, but also at Black Moms who want their kids to come home safe at night - worked for me.

7 hours ago, pirocafan said:

Here's what I meant: can Biden realistically win against anyone but Trump? If Trump is the Republican nominee, Democrats can run a box of tampons with a D stamped on them, they'll win. If Trump loses the nomination, not sure a synthetic candidate like Harris or an incompetent like Buttigieg can win.

You frame the question differently than I would.  And for the way you are framing it, the conclusion makes sense.  You frame it as a choice election.  So the idea that Biden looks old and tired next to DeSantis makes sense. 

That said, I'm starting to wonder whether Ron will simply come off as a mean or even extreme culture warrior in 2024, if nominated.  The Florida polls suggests people think he managed the hurricane well - like over 70 % approve of that.  And they tend to agree with how he managed the Florida economy during COVID - like well over 50 % approval and around his winning 2022 vote total.  There is no evidence in polls that he won in a landslide because Floridians want culture war.  And how he managed the hurricane or COVID won't really matter outside Florida in 2024.  So I don't buy the idea that Republicans are really better off with him.  Besides, as of now Trump beats him in most Republican primary polls.  My Plan A is that Trump wins the primary in a divided field with his base vote intact, just like in 2016.

I frame the election the way Lichtman frames all Presidential elections.  Which is that they are a referendum on Biden and the Democrats.  His basic argument is that Americans give the person and party in power a thumbs up or thumbs down.  He'd argue in 2020 Trump was going to lose anyway.  Had Warren been nominated, his system argues she would have won as well.

Speaking of Alan, coincidentally I just happened to read this article yesterday:

Data says: Democrats need Biden to run for a second term

Quote

That leaves just two keys up for grabs: a strong short-term economy and Biden deciding to run for a second term. If the economy heals over the next 18 months, then the Democrats are poised to hold onto the White House.

It's interesting that someone other than Lichtman is writing an op/ed that is essentially all about Lichtman's keys system.  But pundits have apparently caught on that if it helps predict every Presidential election since 1984 correctly, and in advance, maybe there is something to it.  And it makes common sense.  The basic idea is that voters are smart.  And in the past, when there were these similar situations - like a recession, or a war, or an impeachment scandal - here is how it played out in terms of who won.

The framing in that article is an interesting way to put it.  Because the basic idea is that Biden or Democrats can afford to lose five keys.  So they need eight of 13 keys to win.  The author spells out the seven keys Biden/Harris appear to have locked up for 2024.  So that statement I quoted above suggests that if the short-term economy is strong in Fall 2024, a Democrat other than the incumbent could win.  The strong short term economy provides the eighth key.  

Except, it doesn't.  Because one of the eight keys the author counts is the lack of a primary fight.  But if Biden does NOT run, there will be a 2024 primary fight.  So as the author lays it out, Biden and Harris are likely down four keys now.  Biden not running would add two more: losing an incumbent, and gaining a primary fight.  In that situation, Lichtman would argue Democrats will lose.  And it doesn't really matter whether Republicans run Trump or DeSantis. 

On the other hand, if you assume that Biden wins some military victory in Ukraine, and the economy is good, and there is no big scandal other than whining about Hunter, the keys would favor any Democrat to win.  Even if Biden does not head the ticket.

The main point I think Lichtman would make about the bed wetting by pundits about Biden is that they are simply wrong.  US history tells us being an incumbent is always an asset.  Period.  Now, add that the incumbent has dementia, and that's different.  But then the issue is dementia.  Not being the incumbent.

Lichtman gets lots of pot shots sent his way.  But, to me, the system he developed with a Russian seismologist (who was fascinated by US democracy) is almost common sense.  But also built on sound statistical principles.  He trusts voters, not pundits or pollsters.  We know that the polls that said in 1983 that Mondale would win in a landslide and 60 % of Americans didn't want Reagan to run again did not do a very good job of actually predicting what would happen in November 1984.  Lichtman says US history suggests voters are pretty good at sorting through multiple variables that really matter.  Like:  it's the economy stupid.

[stevenkesslar]

Did Ronald Reagan Have Alzheimer's Disease While in Office?

I put that as a second post to address the dementia question separately.

If we simply go by age, and assume Biden becomes demented at the same age as Reagan, I think the math works out that he would begin to shows signs of cognitive impairment in tests early in his second term.  Assuming he runs and is re-elected.  The formal diagnosis, if it played out the same as Reagan, would come in the middle of his second term.

You can also argue this the other way.  People may have thought Reagan had Alzheimers.  There may have been awkward moments that were in part characteristic of Reagan being Reagan.  Just like Biden is a perpetual gaffe machine who has a lifelong challenge with stuttering.  But if you go by actual cognitive tests, Reagan's doctors still argue there was no there there.  Until about five years after he left office, when it began to show up in cognitive tests.

This makes sense to me.  Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein are both 89.  No one says Grassley is senile.  Republicans urged him to run again in 2022, since they knew he would win.  Grassley brushes off the issue of age, saying voters watched him in 2022 and made their verdict.  Meanwhile, everybody says Feinstein is in cognitive decline.

This goes back to my judgment that all roads lead to Kamala.  Let's play out that this happens to Biden in the same way it did to Reagan.  In 2025 he takes a test, and the doctors say he is in the normal range.  In 2026 he takes the same test, and the doctors say there appears to be a problem.  Presumably that is when a serious discussion occurs about the President resigning based on a solid medical diagnosis.

Fetterman is more of an issue to me right now.  His argument was that he had a stroke, and he is recovering.  Elect me, and I'll be fine.  Just watch me, and I'll be fine.  Well, we are watching.  And he is not fine.  So you can view this as a blip during a recovery.  But Fetterman has pushed it to the limit.  That said, Democrats wanted the seat.  And if he does resign, a Democratic Governor will decide who will replace him until a special election is held.

To stretch it just a bit further, I'd put Herschel Walker in the same pot.  I view him as an idiot who never should have won.  My judgment is that in 2022 Biden on his worst gaffe-filled day was still a better leader than Walker at his most eloquent.  And Walker had a history of mental illness he was open about.  So there is something to be said for the fact that until Biden is diagnosed with mental illness, he is not mentally ill.  If he tests for cognitive impairment at some future point, we deal with it then.  It's exactly the same standard that was used with Reagan.

[njf]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:40 PM, alvnv said:

This is not the time for isolationists

Isolationist may be a a poor word choice of mine.  However, the following quote is from Jimmy Carter in a speech in 2018:

"So, we have been almost constantly at war and China has been constantly at peace since 1980. That’s been a lot of difference because we have spent probably 4 trillion to 6 trillion dollars in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about as much as our total budget for a year. In the meantime, China has spent all that money invested in their great and growing infrastructure. "

The full speech is at https://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/carter-emory-lecture-china-north-korea.html

It is really sad that Biden is worse at foreign policies than his erratic predecessor.

[njf]

18 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

The main point I think Lichtman would make about the bed wetting by pundits about Biden is that they are simply wrong.  US history tells us being an incumbent is always an asset.  Period.  Now, add that the incumbent has dementia, and that's different.  But then the issue is dementia.  Not being the incumbent.

Lichtman gets lots of pot shots sent his way.  But, to me, the system he developed with a Russian seismologist (who was fascinated by US democracy) is almost common sense.  But also built on sound statistical principles.  He trusts voters, not pundits or pollsters.  We know that the polls that said in 1983 that Mondale would win in a landslide and 60 % of Americans didn't want Reagan to run again did not do a very good job of actually predicting what would happen in November 1984.  Lichtman says US history suggests voters are pretty good at sorting through multiple variables that really matter.  Like:  it's the economy stupid.

I would agree that Biden may be the safest choice for democrat in 2024.  However, the potential cost is the democrats would lost really big in 2028. A more senile Biden will probably cause a fracturing of the global economy and an economic disaster worse than the Great Depression. The dollar is dying because the Biden administration foolishly used it as a weapon against Russia and many countries are quietly selling US dollar afterward. Decoupling with China will cause hyper-inflation not seen since the Carter years. Europeans may break away from US when the conflict between US and China breaks out. I see that second term of Biden as a disaster in waiting and democrats may have a difficult time recovering after that.

[Suckrates]

Americans seem to have a very tough time imagining anyone OTHER THAN an old white man as President...And while I do agree Bidens experience enabled him to accomplish many good and needed things in his administration, I feel its time for him to move on.....The right will stay focused on attacking him, and that detracts from his service.

And unless TRUMP is in jail (GOD willing)   there has to be a candidate likable and popular enough to defeat Trump, eventhough choosing Trump again as their guy will probably be a losing strategy ?

For anyone paying attention, it cant be denied that Biden is losing steam, although he pushes himself to the extreme.   Noone is more dedicated, but is he capable of another 4 years ?   Basically, this decision is a crapshoot, since even if Biden runs and wins, can he survive another full term ?     I wish we could ask Miss Cleo.  

[KYTOP]

 My answer is simple... NO he should not run again. Anyone that has been around people with borderline dementia can plainly see, that sadly, he is in decline. To vote for him just because he is a Democrat is a disservice to this country. 

I have always seen myself as a moderate and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans (boo and hiss from the crowd). My problem is that I have trouble finding a moderate in either party. The Democrats have many good people that would make a good President. Problem is people drift in the direction that the Media lead them, the persons that get their attention then get America's attention. Example: Amy Klobuchar I think would be a decent President. She ran last time but got no traction, she was not the media's darling. I watch Senate Judiciary committee hearings very often. Both Harris and Klobuchar served there and Amy ran rings around Harris when it came to how each of them functioned on that committee and even in the Supreme Court nominee hearings. Biden should have chosen Klobuchar instead of Harris for VP and that would have given the Democrats a good option. I like Mayor Pete, but have not been at all impressed with him as Transportation Secretary. I have no intention of voting for him just because he is a Gay man.

If the Democrat Party cannot find a suitable alternative to Biden then that should make one wonder about the Democratic Party.

[alvnv]

1 hour ago, njf said:

It is really sad that Biden is worse at foreign policies than his erratic predecessor.

While Biden foreign policy seems to suffer from his personal weakness (i.e. foot in mouth), suggesting that that of Trump was better is tragic if it comes from Americans and allies, and comic if it comes from their adversaries

[caeron]

 

I see no republican currently considered in play for the 2024 nomination to be better than a demented Biden. 

As for the Carter statement about our wars, I don't disagree, but let's remember the wars in question were all started by republican neocons with grand delusions of being welcomed as saviors.

Those wars were very different than the Ukrainian war. Does any sensible person believe that the Neville Chamberlain approach to Russia's imperial ambitions will work? That Putin will just stop when he gets some more pieces of Ukraine?

>>If the Democrat Party cannot find a suitable alternative to Biden then that should make one wonder about the Democratic Party.<<

Is there anyone anyone at all that isn't a disaster in the republican party now? In the past, I have occasionally voted for republicans. I can't today, republicans have gone insane. All they are now is culture war crazies and give aways to big corporations. Our nation, indeed the world, is sliding towards fascism and authoritarianism. 

[alvnv]

57 minutes ago, caeron said:

Is there anyone anyone at all that isn't a disaster in the republican party now? In the past, I have occasionally voted for republicans. I can't today, republicans have gone insane. All they are now is culture war crazies and give aways to big corporations. Our nation, indeed the world, is sliding towards fascism and authoritarianism. 

John McCain was an honorable man and a great patriot of the USA. I don’t think there are many republicans left that have not been soiled by their association with Trump. John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Slim Pickings…?

[njf]

2 hours ago, alvnv said:

While Biden foreign policy seems to suffer from his personal weakness (i.e. foot in mouth), suggesting that that of Trump was better is tragic if it comes from Americans and allies, and comic if it comes from their adversaries

Here is why Biden's foreign policy is worse:

1. Sleep walking toward a nuclear conflict with Russia

The Munich security conference is very active this year.  The Chinese side made an unusual eye-catching statement about an interest in being an mediator between Russia and Ukraine.  That is followed by Blinken's new media blitz with accusations of potential Chinese military aid to Russia. These are worrisome signs of drastic escalation of the Ukraine war in the near future. The Chinese side emphasize that a nuclear war is unacceptable.  It is quite likely that a serious risk of a nuclear conflict motivates them to get involved more. 

2.  The current US-China relationship

I cannot match the thoughtfulness and eloquence of Chas Freeman Jr., a career US diplomat on this subject.  So here is the link to his recent speech:

https://chasfreeman.net/2505-2/

The title of the speech, "U.S. China Policy: A Case of Self-Harm", lays out the problem with Biden's policy clearly.

[alvnv]

55 minutes ago, njf said:

Here is why Biden's foreign policy is worse:

1. Sleep walking toward a nuclear conflict with Russia

The Munich security conference is very active this year.  The Chinese side made an unusual eye-catching statement about an interest in being an mediator between Russia and Ukraine.  That is followed by Blinken's new media blitz with accusations of potential Chinese military aid to Russia. These are worrisome signs of drastic escalation of the Ukraine war in the near future. The Chinese side emphasize that a nuclear war is unacceptable.  It is quite likely that a serious risk of a nuclear conflict motivates them to get involved more. 

2.  The current US-China relationship

I cannot match the thoughtfulness and eloquence of Chas Freeman Jr., a career US diplomat on this subject.  So here is the link to his recent speech:

https://chasfreeman.net/2505-2/

The title of the speech, "U.S. China Policy: A Case of Self-Harm", lays out the problem with Biden's policy clearly.

1. Russia’s victory in Ukraine would bring us to a nuclear war

2. Full of inaccuracies and biased opinions

[njf]

2 hours ago, alvnv said:

1. Russia’s victory in Ukraine would bring us to a nuclear war

2. Full of inaccuracies and biased opinions

Please elaborate. Why would Russia resort to nuclear weapons after winning the war? And what are inaccurate and biased in Freeman’s speech?

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, njf said:

Decoupling with China will cause hyper-inflation not seen since the Carter years. Europeans may break away from US when the conflict between US and China breaks out. I see that second term of Biden as a disaster in waiting and democrats may have a difficult time recovering after that.

Maybe, maybe not.

An alternative vision is that we actually have a great global economic boom. 

To put another somewhat eccentric thinker out there, there is stock market pundit Glenn Neely.  His claim to fame is back in 1988, right after the 1987 Dow crash, he said the bull market was fine.  And the Dow was gradually headed to 100,000.  Not 1,000.  Most Wall Street types were pessimists at the time, and thought he was nuts.  In fact, we now know a massive bull market followed.  Now Neely says we'll likely get to Dow 200,000 in a matter of decades.  His main point is he is bullish on global capitalism, and rising global prosperity.  He hasn't been proven wrong so far.  Right now he is predicting the S & P will be back to 5500 by next Summer.  (His technical analysis-based stock voodoo is in the last five minutes of that video.)  And he predicts we are entering one of the biggest bull markets in history.  I would not bet on that.  But I would not bet against it, either.   Did I mention it's February, and my stock portfolio is up 25 % YTD?  

I blame the right wing for some of our economic problems, as well as the reckless wars like Iraq.  America lost 6 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010 or so.  Most of that was during the eight years of W.  And the great incentive to automate factory jobs.  Or move them to someplace like China or Mexico with much cheaper labor.  A bit of the factory jobs freefall was inherited by Obama during The Great Recession.  When Biden voted for NAFTA, in the early 90's, he predicted it would be a jobs wash.  If you go by the math, he was correct.  Factory jobs were flat in the 90's.  Then in the 00's, when China joined the WTO and the millions of jobs were going away, Biden started ranting about "fair trade." He voted against W.'s free trade deals.  The irony to me is that while the jobs were definitely lost during a Republican Administration, Trump turned Hillary into Madame NAFTA.  And made himself look like the anti-W on both Iraq and free trade.  But he did not bring the factory jobs back.

So I read articles from conservative economists today that say we are quickly and globally dismantling the key things that created The Great Moderation.  Like global free trade, and loose immigration policies.  These economists see economic nationalism as mostly toxic.  They say this is a recipe for the new Great Stagflation.    Regardless, it's not like Trump or the MAGA Republicans are fans of free trade with China.  Biden is the one who keeps saying we want to manage competition with China.  Not conflict.  And if I had to name one thing that resulted in MAGA, gloom and doom, and the election of Trump, it would be the loss of the millions of factory jobs and industrial base in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  Which of course were the states that elected Trump.  Even though he lost the national popular vote.  At least as of 2022, the Democrats in those states are winning the debate about how to rebuild an industrial base and factories that create good paying jobs.  California is pro-trade, pro-immigration, pro-Democrat, and the 5th largest economy in the world.

The reason I could see Neely's stock market optimism to be on target is that under Biden I think we are getting our economic shit together.  There is the bipartisan stuff like the infrastructure and chips investments.  There's the partisan stuff like the climate change/green energy bill.   Skeptics are raising good questions about whether the US can just pass one bill, albeit a massive one, and beat Taiwan at something they are extremely good at.  There's also big questions about whether industrial policy even makes sense.  Although China sure has a national industrial policy.  Europe is freaking out that the incentives for green manufacturing in the climate change bill will allow the US to outcompete Europe.  So all of these are very complex economic issues.  But I don't get the sense that the US currently suffers from economic malaise. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years.  Massive investments are being made in public/private partnerships on new technologies.

China may want to be the leader in every emerging technology in the world.  But they are not there yet.  And whether they will ever get there is a good question.  These days, my read is Biden is the voice for economic competition with China.  The people who seem to be most eager to race into conflict with China are MAGA Republicans.

So now that the COVID pandemic is over and the global supply chain and inflation issues are unwinding, I think Neely - as one somewhat eccentric example - has a good case for optimism based in flourishing global capitalism.  If the economy has recovered and inflation has further dissipated by November 2024, that is wind at the back of Democrats.  As Lichtman says history proves.  If Neely's optimism about global capitalism (including China's state capitalism) and rising stock markets is correct - like it was in the late 1980's - that would help make a second Biden term look like an economic success story.  Even if the guy presiding over it is old, and seemingly in decline.

8 hours ago, njf said:

"So, we have been almost constantly at war and China has been constantly at peace since 1980. That’s been a lot of difference because we have spent probably 4 trillion to 6 trillion dollars in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about as much as our total budget for a year. In the meantime, China has spent all that money invested in their great and growing infrastructure. "

Great line by Jimmy Carter.  And Biden was one of the warmongers on Iraq, in my view.  One of the reasons I was not a fan of his in 2020.  That said, the worst you can say about Biden on Iraq is that he went along with the gang on something very wrong that was going to happen, anyway.  Thanks to Cheney and Rumsfeld and WMD.  

I was in the 25 % or so US minority that opposed the Iraq War.  My guess is I'm now in a 25 % or so minority that thinks Biden did the right thing in Afghanistan.  Early in the Obama Administration he tried hard to talk Obama into pulling the plug.  Instead, Obama listened to the generals, and did the surge. Obama of course knew that whichever President pulled the plug would be perceived as weak.  So my read is that Biden knew he would be perceived as weak.  Even if there weren't the theatrics about a bomb exploding and people chasing airplanes on tarmacs to get out.  Which made him look really weak.  But I think it was an unwinnable war.  So he was right to stop trying to win it.  He did not pay a price for it in 2022, at least.  I suspect that is because, while they blame him for the way he did it, most Americans are glad to be out of Afghanistan.   

Ukraine is a whole different matter.  The funny thing is that some Republicans are saying that Biden is both weak, on Afghanistan, and a warmonger, on Ukraine.  There is an argument to made.  Especially about how much we spend on war in Ukraine.  And how we avoid escalation to World War III.  But most Americans are strongly behind helping Ukraine defend themselves from Putin.