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

[alvnv]

9 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

It at least used to be the case that college-educated and more affluent Whites tended to vote more Republican.

Not any more. Remember “…I love poorly educated!”

[Suckrates]

23 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

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.  

 

 

For me it wasnt their decision to work for Trump, it was their COMPLICITY to Support and ASSIST him in his anti american agenda and spreading of Lies.    It makes them no better than him  IMO. 

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, Suckrates said:

For me it wasnt their decision to work for Trump...

I agree. Trump's MO has always been to hire unscrupulous people to perform illegal and immoral acts, then throw them under the bus when they're caught. Choosing to work for someone like Trump shows both poor judgment and poor moral character, even if Trump's the bigger sociopath. 

[Suckrates]

39 minutes ago, unicorn said:

I agree. Trump's MO has always been to hire unscrupulous people to perform illegal and immoral acts, then throw them under the bus when they're caught. Choosing to work for someone like Trump shows both poor judgment and poor moral character, even if Trump's the bigger sociopath. 

Clearly, they all made a CHOICE.... and that choice hopefully will be their downfall !   

[stevenkesslar]

On 2/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, unicorn said:

I agree. Trump's MO has always been to hire unscrupulous people to perform illegal and immoral acts, then throw them under the bus when they're caught. Choosing to work for someone like Trump shows both poor judgment and poor moral character, even if Trump's the bigger sociopath. 

Even though he was not part of his administration, Lindsey Graham would be my choice for "moral worm" poster child of the Trump era.  His flip flopping was even more craven than most.  Like when having a mob attack the Capitol he serves in was just a bridge too far for his ladylike sensibilities.  Until MAGA world turned out to be okay with Jan. 6th, and Miss Graham was, too.

Fiona Hill is an example of a real lady.  And I'd even argue John Bolton was a real gentleman, too.  Both worked for Trump thinking they could do some good.  Both acted like adults in the room.  Gen. Kelly is another.  I admire Hill in a way I don't admire Bolton.  She was willing to testify.  He saved his judgments to make money on a book.  But whether I agree with every conservative thing they say or not, I feel they were working for the American people.  Instead of just working for Trump and advancing his lies.

[Suckrates]

19 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Even though he was not part of his administration, Lindsey Graham would be my choice for "moral worm" poster child of the Trump era.  His flip flopping was even more craven than most.  Like when having a mob attack the Capitol he serves in was just a bridge too far for his ladylike sensibilities.  Until MAGA world turned out to be okay with Jan. 6th, and Miss Graham was, too.

Fiona Hill is an example of a real lady.  And I'd even argue John Bolton was a real gentleman, too.  Both worked for Trump thinking they could do some good.  Both acted like adults in the room.  Gen. Kelly is another.  I admire Hill in a way I don't admire Bolton.  She was willing to testify.  He saved his judgments to make money on a book.  But whether I agree with every conservative thing they say or not, I feel they were working for the American people.  Instead of just working for Trump and advancing his lies.

Well, perhaps Miss Lindsey is one of those that Fani Willis pegged for Perjury and will be receiving a nice, fat indictment ?

Wouldnt that be Grand, bless her heart ?   And then in a nice, cold prison cell, Miss Lindsey can finally find herself a Big, strong man to actually call her own.....who fucks some sense and dignity into her. ......  Make mama proud for once. 

[alvnv]

It’s actually Lady Graham

[tassojunior]

my view of all politicians:

[unicorn]

There used to be some politicians, even in the Republican party, that I could respect, such as John McCain. Those are becoming a dying breed. I'll never forget the 60 Minutes story which showed that Congress members, who used to spend most of their time in their offices, now spend most of their time in their party's campaign buildings drumming up support.

[Suckrates]

32 minutes ago, unicorn said:

There used to be some politicians, even in the Republican party, that I could respect, such as John McCain. Those are becoming a dying breed. I'll never forget the 60 Minutes story which showed that Congress members, who used to spend most of their time in their offices, now spend most of their time in their party's campaign buildings drumming up support.

Getting support doesnt seem to be a problem for me,  its what they want support FOR that is the problem !   👎

[tassojunior]

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, tassojunior said:

It's like when we see on the news tornadoes in Arkansas. I tell my partner "That's Lord Shiva vacuuming up the Bible belt...". 

 

[Pete1111]

On 2/18/2023 at 5:28 PM, stevenkesslar said:

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.

People blaming Buttigieg for supply chain problems don't understand supply chain theory.  Yet why would anyone expect the MAGA crowd to get schooled on that or any other subject matter.

Buttigieg is young and smart but the Bernicrats are already coming out of the woodwork again claiming he is a warmongering wolf in sheep's clothing and a failure on East Palestine. 

I'm tired of the lib-tards sh!tting on Pete and ready to surrender to the obvious.  Biden needs to run again.  He'll probably beat Trump.

 

[Marc in Calif]

13 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

I'm tired of the lib-tards sh!tting on Pete and ready to surrender to the obvious.  Biden needs to run again.  He'll probably beat Trump.

So you use the right wing's lib-tard epithet only for the Bernie Bros? I hope you realize that they themselves use it to refer to anyone to the left of Mitt Romney. 

[lookin]

Personally, it's way too early for me to be handicapping Joe Biden.  A lot can happen in a year.

I can say that I have no issue with Biden's age, as I believe functional age is more relevant than chronological age and there are many younger politicians acting a lot goofier than Biden.  I also believe that a President is not a dictator and those around her/him are just as important as the President.

I can also say that I think Kamala Harris is more of a handicap than a help.  Biden's best shot would be to choose a Vice-President who would make a popular President.  Not that I think it would happen but Michelle Obama could probably put them both in the White House.

One thing I've been watching with a bit of surprise is Biden's tracking in the Rasmussen Presidential Poll.  He just hit a positive number for the first time since his six-month 'honeymoon' in 2021.  I don't know why and some folks will say the Rasmussen poll is awful and tilted toward Republicans, but I follow it since it's a daily poll and I focus on the day-to-day changes rather than the absolute numbers.

Finally, if you told me that Biden will be elected because of Republican misfires rather than his own achievements, I wouldn't disagree with you.

[Mavica]

48 minutes ago, lookin said:

I can also say that I think Kamala Harris is more of a handicap than a help.  Biden's best shot would be to choose a Vice-President who would make a popular President. … if you told me that Biden will be elected because of Republican misfires rather than his own achievements, I wouldn't disagree with you.

I agree with the above.