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

[alvnv]

2 hours ago, njf said:

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

1. If Russia gets away with land grabbing in the Ukraine, it will continue its expansion to the west and south reclaiming the lost territories of former USSR, including NATO members, which will result in enactment of Article 5 and WW3 = nuclear war.

2. Sorry, too long to list. Here’s one reference to his bias: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/08/rights-advocates-attack-freeman-pick/

[njf]

18 minutes ago, alvnv said:

1. If Russia gets away with land grabbing in the Ukraine, it will continue its expansion to the west and south reclaiming the lost territories of former USSR, including NATO members, which will result in enactment of Article 5 and WW3 = nuclear war.

2. Sorry, too long to list. Here’s one reference to his bias: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/08/rights-advocates-attack-freeman-pick/

It is a conjecture that Russian will continue to expand if it wins in Ukraine.  The reality is that Russia is not winning.  The reality is also that Russia cannot lose so it will resort to nucleus weapons to prevent a loss. So the greater and more immediate nucleus risk at the moment is to push for a total victory against Russia.

[njf]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

  But most Americans are strongly behind helping Ukraine defend themselves from Putin.   

It is certainly the right thing to help Ukrainian to defend themselves against Putin's invasion.  It is another thing to quiescent to Ukrainian's unrealistic desire for a total victory.  Most wars end with negotiations and political settlements.  Do you really think that a total defeat of a nuclear power is possible or even desirable?

[stevenkesslar]

Just now, njf said:

It is certainly the right thing to help Ukrainian to defend themselves against Putin's invasion.  It is another thing to quiescent to Ukrainian's unrealistic desire for a total victory.  Most wars end with negotiations and political settlements.  Do you really think that a total defeat of a nuclear power is possible or even desirable?

Short answer: no.

I like Kissinger's views on Ukraine.  In part because Kissinger is the (possibly diabolic) realist who has made a point to stay close to Putin and try to understand him.

I'm not sure Kissinger tries to nail down what "status quo ante" means.  Presumably because that would be the subject of negotiations.   What could trigger World War III?  on my mind it would be the idea that we flood Ukraine with so much money and weapons that they roll over Crimea and humiliate Putin.  But I don't think that is even a wildly realistic scenario, though.  At least that's what the generals are saying, I think.  The more realistic scenario is that Russia and Vlad are still the big guys with more money and more guns.  So realistically it seems like what the US and NATO can buy is Ukraine's survival.  But not Ukraine's complete military success.

In context, I take that as a victory for Biden, and NATO.  And for the principles of democracy and sovereignty, and all the nations aligned with those principles.  Before the war Kissinger was pushing the idea of some form of Ukrainian neutrality.  It is interesting that now he says, realistically, that Ukraine and NATO are de facto wedded together.  So some deal that gives Vlad some land, and that plants Ukraine in NATO, may be achievable.  The tough part is defining "some land."  And Kissinger's notion that Vlad would somehow accept that Ukraine is now basically in NATO's camp, even if not formally so, is questionable.

One line I'm getting sick of is what Obama-era US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said on Morning Joe today.  Which is that we can't really answer the question of what kind of peace could be negotiated.  Since that is up to Ukraine.  McFaul doesn't speak for Biden or his Administration.  And I know it's the politucally correct thing to say.  But I assume that because the US and NATO have kept Ukraine alive with our guns and money, in the end the US and NATO can privately force Team Zelenskyy into an unpalatable peace deal.

My honest question is:  will Vlad sign such a deal?  Even the kind of deal where it is basically a long term cease fire more than a real basis for lasting peace.

Russian Maps Featuring Occupied Ukraine Territories Go on Sale in Moscow

Quote

Bookstores across Moscow have begun selling maps that show four partially occupied southeast Ukrainian regions as Russian territory, media reported Wednesday, as lawmakers move to outlaw displaying the regions as part of Ukraine.

Quote

Russia’s lower house of parliament is moving to impose up to 15 days of jail or fines of up to 1 million rubles ($14,000) for “extremist” maps that “dispute Russia’s territorial integrity.” 

Granted, it's easy to dismiss that as a political stunt.  The equivalent of George W. Bush standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign.  Regardless, I wasn't fined 1 million rubles for disagreeing with W about Iraq.  And the fact remains that the failure to accomplish the mission cost W., and Republicans, dearly in 2006 and 2008.  It's not clear what kind of peace Putin and his militaristic gang can agree to, if they want to survive.

For now, my guess is that most Americans would be against the idea that we have to push hard enough that Joe Biden has a photo op next year somewhere in Crimea, which is now Ukraine again, with a "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him.  That seems reckless.  But Joe Biden standing next to Zelenskyy in Kyiv is probably something most Americans are for.  Even if they don't respect Biden.

To yet again bring in Alan Lichtman, I've wondered what a victory in Ukraine that would turn one of his keys in favor of Biden and Democrats would look like.  Would any type of "land for peace and permanent NATO alignment" be seen as a victory in the US?

But, along the lines of Kissinger, I think not letting Putin win is basically a victory for the US, NATO, democracy, and national sovereignty.  Not that the US itself will always honor all those principle, of course!  🤫

[Moses]

Just 3 questions:

1. Why US should be ruled by gerontocracy?

2. Why US should be ruled from graves?

3. Why Mr. Alzheimer and Ms. Dementia should continue this nonsense?

[alvnv]

4 hours ago, njf said:

Do you really think that a total defeat of a nuclear power is possible or even desirable?

Sure. Remember USSR?

[alvnv]

7 minutes ago, Moses said:

Just 3 questions:

1. Why US should be ruled by gerontocracy?

2. Why US should be ruled from graves?

3. Why Mr. Alzheimer and Ms. Dementia should continue this nonsense?

1. Putin may turn 71 this year, and had Vovochka with his mnogokhodovochka not screwed the whole Russia, he could have presided while embalmed like Brezhnev.

2. Chernenko was literally decomposing when he was appointed to head the Soviet Union.

3. At least they are not shitting themselves like you know who. Now we know what Z stands for: Zasranets

[stevenkesslar]

30 minutes ago, alvnv said:

Sure. Remember USSR?

I guess this is me hijacking my own thread.  This fascinating Politico story I read last month is relevant, but only in a very tangential way.  

‘I Protect Ronnie From Himself’: How Nancy Reagan Used a Snowstorm to Help Thaw the Cold War

Secretary of State George Shultz couldn’t steer the administration off its hawkish path — until the first lady hauled him through a snowstorm for dinner.

Your simple answer to whether we can defeat a nuclear power is yes.  Mine was no.  That article suggests we can split the difference.  Like, if you're going to defeat a nuclear power, you might want to do it carefully.

The simple version of why Reagan won the Cold War is because, unlike even many conservatives, he thought he could.  And he had an arms race to back it up.  The counter argument is that Reagan couldn't have ended the Cold War without Gorbachev on the other side.  What I found interesting in that article is the notion that Reagan, and even moreso his wife, were relative doves in his own hawkish Administration.  Reagan clearly was for negotiating, as well as arming up.

Something like that applies to Ukraine.  If Zelenskyy "wins," whatever that means, it will be in large part because Biden and NATO thought he could.  And armed him to the teeth.  That said, the war won't end until Putin decides it in his interest to end it.  This is the point Kissinger keeps making about Putin's interests and negotiations.  He also had more than a little to do with ending the Cold War.

I'd argue my comparison of Biden to Reagan in this context is a good one.  Not only in terms of their age.  But also in terms of their judgment.

 

[forky123]

8 hours ago, njf said:

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

You are making a huge assumption that if Russia won in Ukraine that’s where it would end. People need to stop blaming the West for the crimes Putin is performing.

[Moses]

 

1 hour ago, alvnv said:

Putin may turn 71 this year

And he will be still 5 years younger than Mr. Biden-Alzhaimer was when he took his first presidential elections 😁😆🤣😂

On the picture: Mr. Biden-Alzhaimer meets minister of the foreign affairs USSR Andrey Gromyko, 1988, Moscow, USSR.

 

[forky123]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

 

And he will be still 5 years younger than Mr. Biden-Alzhaimer was when he took his first presidential elections 😁😆🤣😂

Must be hard on the electorate when the choice is between someone in the early stages of what might be dementia and someone who is a certifiable sociopath. 

[Mavica]

As I view the matter, President Biden should not run for re-election and ought to be grooming the next likely Presidential candidate ... someone other than VP Harris.  The bench for the Democrats can be deep but out of respect for President Biden those individuals are holding back.  Pete has been out front for the President more than any other Cabinet Secretary, IMO, but he's flubbed some important opportunities ... such as the current crisis in East Palestine, Ohio.  Pete's an excellent campaigner, too, but the elephant in the room is ... are USA voters ready to elect a gay man President?

President Biden is too old, looks too old, looks exhausted and it will only get worse for him.  But I remember President Reagan who it's widely believed was suffering from Altzheimer's his last term and his staff and family covered it up best they could.  That was then, this is now.  If the GOP fields a young or younger, substantially younger candidate to run against Biden ... a comparatively moderate candidate ... then Biden's chance of re-election lessens.

It's time to thank the President for his decades of service, and move on to a younger team of leaders.

[caeron]

On 2/20/2023 at 10:53 AM, alvnv said:

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…?

And sadly, to win the nomination McCain had to soil himself. I lost respect for him for the shit he chose to say to win the nomination. If he had actually stayed honorable, I was considering voting for him. He didn't.

It was hard to fault him for it though, since if he hadn't, I don't think he could have won the nomination. That's the growing sickness in the republican base.

[Marc in Calif]

17 hours ago, Moses said:

On the picture: Mr. Biden-Alzhaimer meets minister of the foreign affairs USSR Andrey Gromyko, 1988, Moscow, USSR.

Unless you're a Yiddish speaker, you might check how you write German names. ☺️

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, caeron said:

It was hard to fault [McCain] for it though, since if he hadn't, I don't think he could have won the nomination. That's the growing sickness in the republican base.

If you haven't seen the film version of Game Change, which focused on McCain's pick of Palin, you should check it out.  One of my favorite movies.  It portrays how Palin was the canary in the coal mine to what later became MAGA.  And McCain got stuck running a race he didn't want to run.  And couldn't win, anyway.  On that race in particular, Lichtman argued the Republicans had so many fundamentals working against them in 2008 that Democrats could have picked Charlie The Tuna Fish.  And he would have won.  Truth be told, Charlie wasn't that young, either.

Speaking of age:

11 hours ago, Mavica said:

But I remember President Reagan who it's widely believed was suffering from Altzheimer's his last term and his staff and family covered it up best they could.  That was then, this is now.  If the GOP fields a young or younger, substantially younger candidate to run against Biden ... a comparatively moderate candidate ... then Biden's chance of re-election lessens.

I'm not sure I buy that argument.  

I posted an article about Reagan above.  There were definitely plenty of anecdotes about what seemed like it could be Alzheimers.  At least one of which played out on national TV, during that first 1984 national debate.  But the key point to me is that the doctors, who presumably know, still say that Reagan did not begin to test for dementia in long cognitive tests until 1994, long after he left office.  So there's a good argument that Reagan served for eight years and got the job done.  Even if he was old.  

Back in 2020 I read a bit about Konrad Adenauer.  He resigned as Chancellor at 87, and stayed on as head of the CDU until 90.  To me, looking at this from a partisan perspective as a Democrat, "Joe Adenauer" is the best case scenario.  This part I read in 2020 stuck with me:

Quote

During his years in power, West Germany achieved democracy, stability, international respect and economic prosperity, undergoing the Wirtschaftswunder (German for "economic miracle").^[3]

Adenauer belied his age by his intense work habits and his uncanny political instinct.  He displayed a strong dedication to a broad vision of market-based liberal democracy and anti-communism. 

The only part that doesn't necessarily fit with Biden is the intense work habits.  I don't know about Biden's day to day routine.  But he is globe trotting from his playful Senate SOTU address to Kyiv.  So he doesn't come off as senile to me.  In his later years Adenauer slowed down, and took naps regularly in the afternoon.  

But if you buy the idea that a comparison with Adenauer could be made, the vision part is that Biden's whole political career stands for certain things:  a commitment to democracy, a Keynesian/FDR commitment to capitalism with liberal government interventions, opposition to Putin's version of crony communism, and a commitment to rebuilding the American economy. 

I know for the MAGA crowd they only see a senile old fool.  Yet, somehow, the unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years.  Somehow, he has the best record on manufacturing jobs since any President in a long time:  900,000 more manufacturing jobs since January 2021.  You can say that's based on recovery from COVID all you want.  But it doesn't change the fact that Trump's four year Presidency left us with half a million fewer factory jobs as of January 2021, compared to when he started.  Whereas Biden is getting close to 1 million more factory jobs since he took over.  It's hard to argue Trump ran things well, and Biden completely fucked up the COVID recovery, when you consider statistics like that.  Which may help explain why Democrats seem to be doing better in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Stock guru Glenn Neely thinks the S & P will hit 5500 by next Summer.  JP Morgan bear David Wilson thinks the looming recession could take the S & P down to 3000 by this Summer.  Which he says would set the stage for a strong V-shaped rebound to 3900 by year end.  And God knows where by Fall 2024.  Those two are probably the book end extreme estimates.  Either way, the realistic scenario is that by Election Day 2024 the S & P could be close to, at, or even well above its all time high.  Presumably that would be driven by getting past these rough patches in corporate earnings and inflation.  Meanwhile, all this money for chips factories and EV factories and bridges is starting to flow.  This just doesn't strike me as a picture of a stagnant economy.  Even Wilson, a bear, describes it as an economy working its way through a series of big shocks toward a new cycle of steady growth.  A bull like Neely says we are about to enter one of the biggest bull markets ever, driven by flourishing global capitalism.

If any of that turns out to be true, it may not matter whether Biden is a senile old fool.  Anymore than it mattered whether Adenauer was a senile old fool who had to go down for naps in the afternoon.  What probably mattered to Germans most was the Wirtschaftswunder.  And the stability, after going through a very ugly period that makes COVID look like a picnic by comparison.  Given that, they were probably fine mit Der Alte.  The optimistic scenario is that most of these bipartisan investments and industrial policy decisions pan out.  And global capitalism keeps doing its things.  And, of course, we avoid war with either Russia or China.

The worst case scenario view, expressed cogently above, is that decoupling from China and getting into trade tit for tats will lead to stagflation in the US.  Xi, unlike Putin, relies on a stable and growing global economy for China to continue to develop.  So the verdict is out.  But I tend to view the glass as half full.  I think taking on Putin and decoupling from China to the degree that we see tangible gains in US factory jobs is going to work out well für Der Alte.

Like Adenauer, Uncle Joe seems to have good, and consistently underrated, political instincts and judgment.  The old man was supposed to be a joke in the Democratic primary.  He won.  Then somehow he became either the senile joke in the basement, or the only man alive who could beat Trump.  Neither of which seemed true to me.  He was supposed to get his ass kicked hard last year, just like he did in the 2010 midterms when he was Veep.  Somehow his instinct to make it about democracy and moderation seemed to work well.  When critics mock him for eating an ice cream cone in Kyiv, which was supposed to be Vlad's new backyard by now, they just set up more low expectations that are easy for him to beat.

 

 

[Moses]

3 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Unless you're a Yiddish speaker, you might check how you write German names.

Yeah, when opponent doesn't like fact, but hasn't argument against it, he always start low key theme of spelling and personality of opponent. Bazaar.

[Moses]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

But it doesn't change the fact that Trump's four year Presidency left us with half a million fewer factory jobs as of January 2021, compared to when he started.  Whereas Biden is getting close to 1 million more factory jobs since he took over.

It's not Biden and Trump, it is COVID. In 2020 many jobs positions were closed because of COVID, in 2022 many jobs positions were opened because of end of COVID.  There is no Trump's or Biden influence.

[caeron]

Just now, Moses said:

It's not Biden and Trump, it is COVID. In 2020 many jobs positions were closed because of COVID, in 2022 many jobs positions were opened because of end of COVID.  There is no Trump's or Biden influence.

Presidents have a lot less influence on the economy than most americans think. Americans vote as if they did, but they don't. More reason why I have little respect for most american voters. They're idiots who engage in magical thinking and don't have a clue what the policy implications of their choices are.

[lookin]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

When critics mock him for eating an ice cream cone in Kyiv . . .

Say what you will, that is one flourishing ice cream cone!  😳

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

It's not Biden and Trump, it is COVID. In 2020 many jobs positions were closed because of COVID, in 2022 many jobs positions were opened because of end of COVID.  There is no Trump's or Biden influence.

I'm of course not arguing that Biden is Glinda, whose magic bubbles create hundreds of thousands of factory jobs out of the goodness of his heart.  Nor am I arguing that Trump was the Wicked Witch of Mar A Lago, whose sheer evil destroyed hundreds of thousands of factory jobs, just so the children of those factory workers would be poor and hungry.  That is not how the economy works, of course.  (Except in Oz, maybe,  Check with him.)

 

But I am arguing against the conservative argument, which is both hollow and hypocritical.  They want everything bad (has anyone ever heard of a thing called inflation?) to be Biden's fault.  But everything good (anybody hear we have the lowest unemployment in half a century?) is just how the economy works, stupid.  Including how it works during a global pandemic.

We could have had a depression.  For that matter, we could have had 5 million dead Americans, rather than "just" 1 million.  So I'd reverse your argument.  It was COVID, for sure.  But it was also Trump and Biden. 

I view the vaccines as one of Trump's greatest achievements.  They saved countless lives all over the world.  I don't get why Gov. Ron DeReaction is trashing them, and the companies that created them.  Why is a Republican conservative arguing against capitalism and innovation? 

Both Trump and Biden did a massive stimulus program.  We can argue to death whether they overshot the mark.  But the economy definitely responded to the massive economic influence of Trump and Biden, and Republicans and Democrats.  The same jolt or stimulus or sugar high - or whatever you want to call it - that created inflationary pressures also created a stock market bubble, record corporate profits, and record low unemployment.  If we had too much inflation for a year, rather than a lot more death and a 1920 post-pandemic deflationary Depression - like the last time we had a horrible global pandemic - that involves acts of leadership we can mostly be happy about, I think.

So, no, I don't see 50 year low unemployment, or the creation of close to 1 million factory jobs, as inevitable.  Or just an act of fate.  Or something that had nothing to do with Trump or Biden.  Nor do I see the bipartisan infrastructure bill, or the bipartisan chips bill, or the partisan green energy jobs bill, as something that just happened because Glinda happened to have some extra bubbles lying around.  The verdict is out about how many jobs those bills will create.  And how much growth it will add.  But even many of the bears who are predicting a 2023 recession and an S & P below 3500 are saying that's basically a bump on the road to a strong recovery.

By the way, I'm a deficit hawk, like my conservative Dad was.  When I was a kid, he used to love to say, "God damn Democrats and their deficit spending."  Which implies, of course, that deficits are not acts of fate, either.  As Biden pointed out in his SOTU, they are acts of Trump.  Including the big fat cat tax cut hog feed Paul and Mitch got passed when Republicans ruled.  But Biden has sure done his share, as well.  Even if the current year deficit is half of his and Trump's record $3 trillion-ish a year binges. 

Again, I'd argue all that sugar injected into the economy by Trump and Biden is why we did not have a depression like 1920.  But, however you feel about it,  there is a bill to be paid.  While I am a liberal, I'm glad the Freedom Caucus is channeling my Dad.  And bitching and moaning about deficits.  The last time we had this kind of political debate, in the 1990's, we ended up with a surplus by the end of the decade.  As well as lots of economic growth, and somewhat higher taxes on the fat cats.  Which is largely why we ended with a surplus by the end of the decade.  We should all be so lucky!

[EZEtoGRU]

I answered this question on the other politics forum (now closed) and I'll answer again here.  I believe Biden should not run given his age.   However, if he does run and becomes the Dem nominee I will enthusiastically vote for him.  Echoing another posters comment, I see no potential republican candidates out there that have the chance of earning my vote.  Trump?  Forgetaboutit!  DeSantis?  Too anti-gay/anti-black to be considered.  Anyone previously associated with Trump in his administration (think Pence, Haley, Pompeo, et al)?  I would never consider them due to the very poor judgement they exhibited in deciding to work for Trump.  They will be forever tainted.  Anyone that has ever praised Trump during his presidency is tainted goods as well as far as I am concerned.  That takes people like Cruz and Rubio out of the running.  Kasich and Jeb Bush seem relatively normal for Republicans but I don't see either of them running.

As far as Plan B for the Dems?  I do like Elizabeth Warren, Pete, Klobuchar & Gavin.  Not big on Harris though.

Trump winning the Republican nomination would be a godsend for the Dems.  Literally any Dem nominee would beat Trump easily.  

 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

 Anyone that has ever praised Trump during his presidency is tainted goods as well as far as I am concerned.  Kasich and Jeb Bush seem relatively normal for Republicans but I don't see either of them running.

How about Tim Scott?   Not in 2024.  But I think he would be a good President down the line.   And I think it would be good for America if we had a Black liberal Democratic President, and then a Black conservative Republican President.  Of course, it would be good if we had a woman President, too.  Not sure where that fits in.  

The interesting thing is that, among Blacks, the polls suggest it is the most well educated and younger Blacks that tend to vote Republican.  Which kind of makes sense.  It at least used to be the case that college-educated and more affluent Whites tended to vote more Republican.   I can see how young upwardly mobile Blacks look at Tim Scott and say, "Yup.  I like that."  What I particularly like about Scott is that he champions a brand of multi-racial Main Street capitalism.  And he temperamentally leans toward compromise.  He is perfectly happy to call out racism.  And the fact that he is a Republican Senator from South Carolina speaks to the fact that there is path for moving beyond racism.

There is no way Republicans will nominate him in 2024.  And I hope he would not be Veep candidate for Trump or DeSantis in 2024, because that would taint him.  I see him, or someone like him, as where Republicans might turn in 2028 if they get their asses kicked in 2024.  That might be the thing that would lead them to say maybe we want to stop this MAGA nonsense and election denial and playing with authoritarianism.  And get back to traditional Main Street capitalist values.  That was the Republican Party my Dad, a small businessman, felt at home in.  That's what I think Tim Scott is for.

Quote

“I see 330 million Americans getting back to celebrating our shared blessings again, tolerating our differences again, and having each other’s backs again,” Scott said, according to the remarks. “This is what I see. A new American sunrise. Even brighter than before.”

Meanwhile, a new poll out today says that Trump does best among Christian evangelicals, and rural and small town types who are not college graduates.  I think that means in 2024 the Republican Party is stuck with fear mongering culture war and some version of MAGA lies and rants.  Whether it is actually Trump or DeSantis leading the charge.

I've had a theory since 2020 that this decade will be somewhere in the ballpark of the 1960's.  Some of it was Black Lives Matter.  Those kinds of political earthquakes don't happen that often in US politics.  It is interesting that one of the keys Lichtman uses that rarely turns is his social unrest key.  The last times he said they contributed to a change in Presidential power were 1932 and 1968.  And then 2020.  So I took that and ran with it.  1932 was a huge political earthquake, that gave birth to the New Deal coalition.  1968 was not quite as big an earthquake, since Nixon won in a fairly close race.  But, especially in retrospect, it was the beginning of the end of the New Deal coalition.  Which Reagan slammed the coffin shut on in 1980. 

It does seem like we're in a period where a new coalition is trying to be born.  And age is the biggest driver.  The youngest Americans vote 2 to 1 Democratic.  So that is not bad news for Democrats in 2024, and 2026, and 2028.  In 2022, as one would expect in a midterm when Democrats are in power, Democrats lost a single digit of vote share in almost every demographic group.  What happens if Democrats get them back in 2024?  Which is similar to what happened in 1996, and 2012.  Presidential years tend to be good turnout for Democrats.  Plus there's this whole new group of Gen Z voters who are overwhelmingly Democratic.  And I'd bet the stock market and economy will be in better shape in Fall 2024 than they are today.

That theory I described in the paragraph above seemed almost laughable around Fall 2022, when it looked like Democrats would get their asses kicked.  But we didn't.  So I think part of it might be that this is a period when progressive ideas and policies have the wind at their backs.  If that is anywhere near true, either Trump or DeSantis are going to be facing headwinds in 2024.  And, if either of them loses, somebody like Tim Scott is the type of candidate Republicans might suddenly find attractive.  If they are tacking back to the center and core conservative values to actually win a Presidential election.

 

[unicorn]

Biden is already showing signs of cognitive decline, and should not run again. My choice would be Klobuchar. Yes, if Biden ran again, I'd have to vote for him. There don't seem to be any intelligent Republicans left. 

[Suckrates]

7 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Biden is already showing signs of cognitive decline, and should not run again. My choice would be Klobuchar. Yes, if Biden ran again, I'd have to vote for him. There don't seem to be any intelligent Republicans left. 

It really has nothing to do with the "intelligence" of the GOP,  it has more to do with their goals and "path".....   how can anyone support that ?   Yet I know a huge swath of the country does. and therein lies the danger.  

[lookin]

12 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

Anyone previously associated with Trump in his administration (think Pence, Haley, Pompeo, et al)?  I would never consider them due to the very poor judgement they exhibited in deciding to work for Trump.  They will be forever tainted.

Not the A-list, that's for sure.  They may have to run on the cheap.  

We’ll be forever tainted
In corners we have painted
We dug a hole
And sold our soul
Our Campaign Chair just fainted

♫♬ ♫♬ ♫♬