Five indications Joe Biden will not run in 2024
It's way to early in the cycle to make these sorts of predictions. Having said that, Joe Biden doesn't seem to be gearing up for a campaign of any sort. Biden cannot rely on Kamala Harris acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail because her approval is in the dumpster, too. Biden will need to be more active on the campaign trail than he was in 2020. And other Democrats (such as Barack and Michelle Obama) can't effectively campaign for an absent Biden; Biden will have to be on stage for that to work.
Right now it appears Biden is going to try to reprise his 'not Trump' campaign from 2020. That won't be as effective with Biden as the incumbent; a 'not Trump' campaign won't defend Biden's record. And its very uncertain that Trump will be the Republican nominee. Biden is at risk of essentially conceding the Presidential election to the Republican challenger who will obviously attack Biden's record.
The Democrats' convention finishes on Aug. 22, 2024, which is very late in the campaign cycle. That's certainly not going to help down ballot Democrats. Are Democrats throwing down ballot races under the bus just to reelect Biden? That seems highly unlikely. While still early in the cycle, the indictors do support plausible speculation that Democrats are going to write off the White House and focus on down ballot races. Democrats may have decided that controlling Congress is a higher priority than controlling the White House.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Standing before a New Mexico audience recently, President Biden unintelligibly joked that, "I hibernated in a while - all, you know, in Iowa for a while." It's not clear what he meant by that, but hibernating is an apt descriptor of the Biden 2024 re-election campaign.
Though Biden was mocked for seemingly campaigning from his basement in 2020, this summer he appears to be campaigning from the beach. That's where he spent the weekend while Maui burned, and serious presidential contenders drummed up support at the Iowa State Fair. That's just one of several indicators that Biden may not be planning to see his name on a ballot next year.
Skeleton Crew- Though Biden has begun hiring fundraisers for the 2024 campaign, his operation is a tiny skeleton crew of staffers working exclusively out of his home state of Delaware. That puts them closer to his homes near Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, but far from the center of gravity in swing states or the nation's capital.
President Joe Biden speaks on the anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act during an event in the East Room of the White House on Wednesday.(AP)
As of last quarter, he had just four people on the payroll, all working out of the party offices. In July, the campaign announced the hiring of a few fundraisers, but there seems to be little urgency to mount a full-scale campaign and the first primary votes are five months away.
Strategic Travel- After spending some of the summer overseas, Biden is in vacation mode for the month of August. Not only did Biden skip the traditionally all-important Iowa State Fair, he traveled to Utah. My home state always welcomes the president of the United States, but we're hardly a battleground state. A serious candidate would have campaigned in Nevada, Colorado and Montana.
He did go on to visit northern Arizona, where he proclaimed the Grand Canyon to be one of the "nine wonders" of the world and full of "ironic" species. He has always been a gaffe machine, but with the election ramping up, his new wilderness grab does nothing to expand his base in critical Arizona. In fact, it polarizes voters.
Where Is Kamala?- Though she has visited Florida and picked fights with GOP presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis, Kamala Harris has been largely invisible through the first three years of the Biden presidency. Unless she makes a gaffe, she seldom makes news. There is talk of deploying her to help with very specific demographic groups during the campaign, but as of now, we haven't seen much of her on the trail.
Her portfolio is minimal. She is nowhere for solving the immigration and human trafficking crisis. She is also supposedly tackling AI. We are not yet sure she can spell "AI" or lead the critical thinking to put necessary guard rails on this emerging technology.
Fiddling While Maui Burns- Biden's inextricable response to the Maui fires from his vacation on the beach of "No comment" ricocheted around the nation. Did he really not have anything to say to those desperate people fighting for their lives as he sunned himself on the beach? This was an opportunity for a president to flex his political muscle. Though the administration insists he has taken action, reports on the ground in Maui describe aid being blocked, properties being looted and FEMA being AWOL.
Hibernating over Hunter- With real, substantive evidence surfacing that the president's son took payments from foreign entities in exchange for access to his father, the campaign seems to be locking down.
The New York Times reported that campaign manager Julie Chavez canceled a planned interview on the Biden-friendly MSNBC "to avoid facing a litany of questions" about Hunter Biden. Upon his return from Rehoboth Beach, Biden's team cordoned off reporters far enough away that Biden could not hear their shouted questions as he turned his back to them.
Though this could be a basement-to-beach campaign strategy, it's more likely that Biden will not run.
With few exceptions, we don't see him on the campaign trail defending his presidency or touting his accomplishments in key battleground states. We don't see his vice president making the case for him. He isn't sharing his vision for the future. He is hiding - hiding from the press, hiding from the scandals and hiding from his own incompetence as a commander in chief.
By the end of this calendar year, I, for one, anticipate he won't be a candidate in 2024.
Jason Chaffetz is a FOX News (FNC) contributor and the host of the Jason In The House podcast on FOX News Radio. He joined the network in 2017.
Bashing Republicans is not a defense of Biden's campaign strategy, if he has one. So, let's pay more attention to Joe Biden than Republicans.
Tags
Who is online
533 visitors
So far, Biden doesn't seem to be in it to win it. And Biden hiding in the basement for 2024 won't help down ballot Democrats.
He can only win against Trump. If Trump becomes not viable, the Democratic knives will come out for Biden.
Biden needs Trump. Do Democrats need Biden? Democrats may dump Biden if he is hurting down ballot Democrats. IMO Trump is not a deciding factor for Democrats, in general.
That is their sole strategy.
Make Trump into a martyr so that he will be the Republican nominee; and then sink him in the courts when it will be too late to pivot to anyone new.
Brandon wins by default. He knows the plan- so does his DOJ/FBI/IRS. He might not be able to beat Trump even. So running unopposed is his only option.
You know, that really would be a brilliant strategy if it were true. Of course, if the indictments are without merit that would backfire on the Ds. And if the cases found Trump to be not-guilty, that would be a disaster for the Ds. So the Ds needed to orchestrate a series of indictments that are likely to generate a guilty verdict; real indictments with merit that would secure a 100% guilty consensus. Then the indictments can be issued to cause Trump to be a martyr and the trials would not discredit the Ds.
No doubt that is what has really happened. It is too far fetched, given what all of us have been able to observe, that Trump might actually be found guilty on these charges.
I agree. It took a 4 year investigation to prove that Trump did not collude with Russia.
Because the Ds already have a history of making indictments against Trump without merit, why do you believe that a Trump supporter (and even independents) would believe that this is not just another politically motivated action?
If Trump is found guilty, depending on the wording of the crime, would any candidate risk ever challenging another election outcome or expressing they felt they were robbed? How about voter protests? Would that be classified as hate speech?
In 2000, the US Supreme Court decided the election and votes were not counted. In 2004, there were questions on the integrity of Ohio's voting machines. I have no way of knowing all of the election challenges in various states since 2000, but the end result of these indictments could further undermine any faith in the US election system and make voters even more apathetic and hostile to the US government.
I see this all being a very slippery slope that will only serve to further divide this country. Of course, that could very well be the goal, but somehow I am not seeing that either party is led by anyone that is not self-serving with a let them eat cake mentality.
Because of the content of the indictments and the evidence supporting the allegations.
Trump was not indicted for merely questioning the results of an election. The charges deal with his actions to corruptly attempt to steal the election (among other things).
It would be if the indictments were superficial and literally did attempt to indict Trump merely for questioning the results of an election (or being an asshole). The indictments do not do that. These are serious charges with plenty of supporting evidence (much is already publicly known).
Partisans will only see their side is righteous regardless of any arguments made.
I will never understand how Trump or Clinton ever had enough supporters to be nominated for any political office in a country with over 300 million citizens.
The 2016 election cured me of having any allegiance with a political party.
I completely understand.
Mueller's investigation actually showed that Trump family and associates DID collude with Russia. It's usually only Texan trying to rewrite history on that fact.
List them.
Of course they would, nobody has been indicted or prosecuted for simple claims.
The question is if any candidate would risk unlawfully attempting to overturn the election? Hopefully it would stop them.
please list any Americans charged with collusion, thanks and then direct your invaluable proof to the proper authorities.
Then why am I reading wiggle words? Should a defendant be convicted by a jury if these were the conclusions by the police after a 4 year investigation?
I think that is largely correct. With Trump as the GOP nominee, pretty much any decent D would win.
I am not so sure if every GOP candidate would be able to win in the general against Biden. But most probably could if the GOP were healthy. The current state of the GOP (and the loss of credibility is has brought on itself) makes me wonder how much that will drain on any GOP nominee.
If Chris Christie were to win the GOP nomination (which, of course, is next to impossible at this point), I think he would likely beat Biden. Asa Hutchinson (if younger) would likely beat Biden too.
I don't know. I see "bridgegate" making a reappearance in the media.
If Christie were to somehow get the nomination, "bridgegate" would have ipso facto been politically handled.
I think the Dems are cooking up an October surprise this year
like a trump conviction...
I agree with the author that Biden won't be the 2024 presidential nominee. However, I would not be surprised that the decision is made more last minute so the Democratic nominating committee decides the candidate - no time for the populace to vote or for any candidates to campaign or debate.
Could very well be true, didn't the DNC back for the 2016 election state that the super-delegates at the convention were to vote the way the DNC wanted? Wonder who they might have in the wings if they decide to bring forth another candidate as IMO Harris is very much unelectable.
I have always thought that Biden was just a place holder because the Democrats could not risk another Clinton/Trump contest. This is why I believe the Democrats are frantic to take Trump out of the race and then work on the GOP candidates that don't even have lukewarm support. I mean, surely Clinton could beat one of them couldn't she?
you believe wrong
I think the Ds want Trump to be the GOP nominee.
If Trump is not the GOP nominee, then Biden would not be able to win by merely NOT being Trump.
I very much doubt that Clinton will ever again run for office.
Now, I very much want Trump to NOT be the GOP nominee and for Biden to NOT be the D nominee. We can easily do much better on both counts. So I am with you in spirit, just not in logic.
They did and then they backtracked on it when they got hammered by their Progressive constituents. The left needs their populists as much as the right does and if they do it again the 'Bernie Bros' will sit out or vote 3rd party.
I have never considered myself a "Bernie Bros", but I did write in Bernie in 2016 and sat out 2020 and will probably not vote in 2024 if I am alive.
To date, there is not one candidate that is worth my support.
My middle-aged children feel pretty much the same.
I look for "Did Not Vote" to have the best election results in history in 2024 unless the US somehow finds candidates that have valid economic, environmental and social policies that are logical, attainable, affordable and universal so the citizens of this country have a reason to unite and work together on something besides invading and bombing other countries to oblivion and then "save" what's left of their citizenry by moving them to the US. In other words, it is time for someone who has a vision to do something entirely new and beneficial.
I hear ya.
I think Apathy is part of the problem. More people vote for The Masked Singer or Dancing with the Stars than in elections. Perhaps if more 3rd party nominees get votes the 2 major players might take notice. If more people participate in local elections and Primaries perhaps we could elect better leaders.
Because everything is so fractured there's little chance of 'unite and work together on something' because it's all politicized. I thought getting behind COVID response would be an easy simple way to unite the country, but obviously I was wrong about that. All the populists came out and made life difficult for everyone else. Short of a mainland invasion I see nothing that would. The Second Coming could happen and it would change nothing.
As a woman, I am not supporting anyone who supports putting males in my bathrooms or sports. I am not supporting a party that denies me any birth control that I need for my mental and physical health. That means neither D or R party deserves or will get my vote.
I have no idea what you mean here.
For the majority of people (worldwide) COVID was not life threatening. People, who needed to isolate, should have isolated until a shot or medication was available that might have lessened their risk. We still have no idea of the long-term effects of the disease or the shots. In this regard, we are all lab rats in one way or another.
There will be worse epidemics in the future as diseases continue to evolve, and also as scientists continue to engineer them.
Then look to be constantly disappointed.
What's the degree of separation between any one person and someone who was threatened? Both my mother and my father-in-law have compromised immune systems.
Isolating everyone was a plan to slow spread and lessen the number of dead before medication was developed. 1.1 million people in the US died. Even after shots came out both left and right populists came out with the craziest conspiracy theories and would spread lies about using horse dewormer. Could there have been a better plan? Probably, but running around like idiots claiming government overreach OR worse government is trying to chip everyone with a COVID shot was stupid. I saw someone on X (Twitter) claiming Polo was fake the other day. People are stupid and getting stupider because we have internet echo chambers and others making money on keeping it that way.
Disappointed? No. Just not going to pretend that either party gives a damn about women in any regard.
Both parties are currently wasting time in a fight over whether a human with a penis should be regarded as a woman because those people want to be in women's bathrooms and women's sports. The easy peasy answer is give them their own bathrooms (so they are protected from other humans with a penis) and have an open category in sports where anyone can compete regardless of penis or vagina. This should never be a political issue, but it is because the Ds have nothing better to run on evidently.
Absolutely.
Because our political system was about fighting one another and making the other side look stupid at every turn, we all lost.
The medical community was not united on response either and still isn't. I don't know if that is due to partisanship or because of evidence or manipulation of evidence.
Some of the shots were pulled from the market because they caused death. Do we know today how many or if it is still happening? Will we ever have facts from the medical community without some kind of spin on it to protect the pharmaceutical companies?
What is the case to have blind faith in the pharmaceutical companies' products? How many drugs have been promoted as effective and then pulled because they killed people?
An example of the message that is uniting young working class people.
Who are the politicians that will campaign on the issues that address the poverty of young working class and then deliver on those promises?
It would be so much easier to declare Biden's not running that it would to pull something like this off. I don't see any upside in your theory for Dems. It makes no logical sense. We can already see from poll numbers how unenthused Dems are with Biden. I would think throwing out some choices for Primaries would pump of bit of enthusiasm into the system.
Our country's citizens are facing continually rising costs for essential goods like food, housing and utilities.
Who is going to donate to these candidates whose job it has been to make sure the citizenry had a decent lifestyle instead of baling out Wall Street and bankers?
"Enthusiasm" for a political candidate that is offering the same old stale promises and delivering inflation? Is that even in the realm of possibility in 2024?
Sure, that's an indictment of our economics system of supply and demand. Not government. The Fed is actually doing a fairly good job of easing inflation without sending us into recession. I suppose we could lobby Congress and States to take more control of food processing/distribution, housing and utilities, but I think it would take a change in the Constitution to work. The short term of those decisions would be extremely chaotic and difficult too. Potentially violent.
Who's going to put money in banks if investors pull all their money? How will workers get paid? How will we purchase anything without the banks and Wall St in the middle. I'm as pissed as you are about them always failing upward. It's obscene. Unfortunately they have a lot of cash to throw to keep congressional rules lax. I wish we see Congress pass laws making negligence on the part of bankers and energy companies criminal.
Clearly doing nothing isn't working.
Well, the system is working for the politicians, bankers, Wall Street and their supporters so they have zero reasons to change what they are doing.
IF the voters don't change the politicians they vote for and support (even as just better than the other party), then the rich get richer in the system that the voters have supported for decades and continue to support today by voting in the same crooks.
When it comes to food, there are under 10 companies that own just about everything in grocery stores.
When it comes to banking, the banks are getting even more too big to fail.
I don't know all of the ins and outs of what deregulation has happened since the 1990s to create monopolies being legal in the US, but I do know that our government is responsible for the money and power being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men.
I have wasted enough of my life trying to understand the game of wealth and power that a person probably can't understand even if they were born in it. It is just their life's purpose to play the game.
I am occasionally amused when narcissists (who have attained some semblance of wealth through lottery, sport, inheritance, luck, etc) try to break into the inner circle of old power and money.
I was looking for some info on Sam Walton's rise from fairly little to massive wealth. I found an interesting article, but what I really found was an example of why the "haves" life experiences have very little in common with those they are supposed to "help" or care about with the token overflow of their wealth.
That's the only way Kamala Harris would have a chance at the White House. The Democrats' establishment might push for that scenario but it's difficult to believe Harris would be their choice, though. If Biden wanted Harris to succeed him then he'd trade the Presidency for a pardon.
Democrats don't have a deep bench for Presidential candidates. IMO Democrats are stuck with Biden. Democrats replacing Biden won't help down ballot Democrats, either. To me it seems that Democrats are going to have to choose between trying to win the White House or trying to win back a majority in Congress. The odds of achieving both don't look promising.
I think a D governor might have a shot.
I submit Gov. Tim Walz.
But will Walz submit to the mudslinging and scrutiny of running a presidential campaign? Can he not care about what some people think of him and at the same time convince his supporters that he does care about their issues?
Or is it really supporters that convince themselves that a politician cares about their issues and the politician just has to say the appropriate talking points to gain office?
I do not know. Thing is, he is not running so it does not really matter. Seems to me the good ones do not run and we are left with slime as our elected officials.
Which is why I am not wasting my time voting for the lessor of two evils.
I agree that a governor would likely have broader appeal than a someone in Congress. I don't know about Tim Walz, though. IMO Walz has more in common with Joe Manchin than people realize. Better look at how Walz dealt with the George Floyd incident.
I have a hard time finding this individual to be anything less than a serious, competent leader:
Seriously, Nerm, if we had the choice of Walz v Trump, would you vote for Trump?
Walz as Democrat candidate for President would encourage me to consider voting for him.
Walz's remarks attempting to excuse the violence, looting, and burning of Lake Street is an argument against Walz as President. In the video Walz presents himself as just being another Biden; throwing law & order under the bus to appease violent protesters and pursuing divisive racial politics as a cop out. George Floyd is no excuse for the burning of Lake Street under any circumstance.
If the video is your endorsement of Walz then Trump is still a better choice than Walz.
That basically proves that there is no reasoning with you.
How would you reason with these young people that politics is in any way truthful or fair?
How would you justify all of major media declaring the outcome of the GOP nominee and presidential election before voting even began? How about the TIME cover of Clinton?
In hindsight, it does appear the fix was in since ALL of the polls turned out to be very inaccurate. What would you tell these young men that would justify why any major media polls be believed today vs 2016?
Yeah, Tim Walz, Joe Biden, and most Democrats talk down to people and expect a bobble-head response.
Democrats talk about me. Democrats talk about what is expected of me. Democrats tell me what they'll do to me if I don't conform. But Democrats won't talk to me. And Democrats will go to great lengths to avoid listening to me.
Democrats do not try to reason with me. Walz wasn't trying to reason with me; Walz wasn't even talking to me. And I'm supposed to believe Tim Walz is second only to the next coming of Christ?
Why are you asking me to defend polls?
WTF are you talking about Nerm?
Don't invent a bunch of crap and then reply to me as if you are rebutting a point I made.
Gee, a whole lot of that is seen daily here, too!
You weren't trying to reason with me. You posted a video and then expected me to agree with you. Since I didn't just agree then you claim I'm unreasonable.
Walz was not talking to me. Why should that convince me to vote for Walz?
I posted a video to show how Walz dealt with the Floyd murder in rebuttal of your claim that this is a reason not to vote for him.
In response you stated that the video suggests Trump is a better choice than Walz.
There is no reasoning with someone who can make such a comment.
The question was in context of how to convince young voters to believe the US election system is fair considering our mainstream media in 2016 colluded in plain sight with fictional data to convince voters that it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would not only win the presidency, but it would also be a landslide victory for her.
This set up the fictional scenario that Russia somehow rigged the election although to date there is not one shred of evidence that Russia influenced one actual vote when the truth of the matter is that Clinton could not win the Democratic nomination without super delegates and was (and still is) one of the least liked, least trusted politicians in decades.
Again, I will state, that as an independent person, the nominees for the 2016 election were unacceptable. Even worse, in hindsight, it makes even less sense, as does all of the investigations and charges because the status quo politicians have lost their power over a large segment of US voters who they have screwed over for decades.
As a person, who has voted since 1980, I have found no rhyme or reason to 2016, 2020 or today in the US political system. I wouldn't begin to know how to explain any of this to the younger generation trying to finish their education and enter the workforce. Who should they trust to protect their homes, potential children and future and how would they know to trust anything written in major mainstream media?
That was the 2016 slogan. Did not work then and will not work now.
I did not watch the video, nor have I researched Walz' public and political life. If I had, I would give specifics of what I support and what I don't.
Nerm_L did not agree with Walz' handling of problems associated with the Floyd murder aftermath. A google search will show he is not alone. That is politics and why we need more parties to address the concerns and issues of a wider number of people who currently are being ignored. The two-party political system is far more broken than the US immigration policy ever could be.
On that basis he deems Trump a better choice than Walz.
Did Nerm_L state he was supporting Trump? Voting for Trump? It is possible that Nerm_L might support a third party candidate?
This game was played with me in 2016 by Clinton supporters. I sincerely hoped it would go away and Democrats would at least develop a new strategy to shame, guilt or antagonize voters who found their candidates unacceptable.
It is up to each party to put forth candidates that a person would support. It is not up to the voters to support any political candidate or party that does not represent them.
I supported Sanders in 2016. I would have voted for Warren if she had been the nominee. Without more research, I don't remember the Democrats fielding another candidate that I would have supported.
As I noted, he stated Trump over Walz:
What 'game'? Anyone who would vote for / support / favor ("consider a better choice") Trump (versus almost anyone) but in this case simply because they disagree with how Walz handled a single event is not someone I consider reasonable.
Where is this coming from? A key argument I have made in this forum (continually) is the failure of the parties to put forth good candidates. Both parties have failed in this regard but the GOP is failing in a spectacular fashion. I presume I need not detail why Trump is a horrible choice for the presidency. Nerm might think that Trump represents him and seek him to be president. If so, I find that to be irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic.
This is not mere, normal disagreement on a political choice. This is disagreement on giving a traitor like Trump the reins of the most powerful office on the planet rather than a demonstrated rational political executive like Walz.
Fair enough. We all have different levels of what we feel is reasonable behavior, logic and thoughts in society. It also causes most of the misunderstandings and conflicts because we are a diverse society and getting more diverse by the day as we possibly add more genders than most of us ever knew was possible. Between ensuring everyone of every gender, sexual orientation, religion and skin color, I don't know how our politicians have time to hand out billions of dollars to their corporate sponsors.
Single event involved abandoning and allowing a police station to be burned by a mob, didn't it?
If so, the issue is not protecting taxpayer property and servants from mob violence and destruction is my guess. If that is a dealbreaker with Nerm_L, why would that be outlandish or unreasonable?
Single issue voters are still voters.
Because he is saying that dealbreaker causes him to favor Trump (who is replete with dealbreakers).
There is a profound difference between Trump and any other GOP candidate or potential candidate.
Thus, for example, favoring DeSantis over Walz would not be deemed unreasonable. The unreasonable factor comes from favoring Trump over any marginally acceptable candidate based on one factor.
The game that a person had to vote for a Democratic candidate over Trump or the person was severely lacking in all aspects of integrity and intelligence and therefore was a deplorable for not being in lockstep with the only righteous political party in 2016.
It is very simple. A political party needs to understand what a person demands in a political candidate and supply that person. Not supply a candidate and demand a person supports them.
I'm still looking for the exceptional candidate in their 40s that wows me with their intelligence and energy to lead the US government into the future.
What policies make DeSantis a reasonable choice to be POTUS?
Do you think I am playing that game?
If so, let me be crystal clear. My position is that Trump should never be given the opportunity to have political power much less the presidency.
Who is PotUS other than Trump is not the factor. Trump NOT being PotUS is the factor. To wit, my position is "not Trump" rather than "must be xxx".
Further, I am not in favor of Biden nor do I care what party the next PotUS is a member of. I picked Walz because he is my choice for the Ds and Trump is an R. My R choice is Chris Sununu ... as with Walz, he is not running either.
That is not an appropriate question if you were following my point.
The question you should ask, if following my point, is what makes Trump an unreasonable choice for PotUS (compared to virtually anyone else).
I didn't ask because I agree he isn't.
The only time in my life I've been subjected to verbal political abuse in real life was by Clinton supporters because I found her as equally as unacceptable as Trump.
Online harassment has pretty much ended as I rarely engage in political discussions such as this one.
It's been interesting and respectful, but I must now go read a few pages in an inane fluff book so I can drift off to sleep and remember the fate of the world does not rest on my viewpoints or decisions.
Peace and goodnight.
Okay, personally I think DeSantis is a poor candidate. His campaign is predominantly based on negativity and will hit a brick wall in the general election. He also seems to be to the right of Trump. He could have been the means to displace Trump, but as we learn more, he is not very appealing.
Anyone (essentially) would be better than Trump, but I would suggest someone like Chris Sununu who, IMO, is an exemplar good GOP candidate.
6) He doesn't know his name or where he is.
Boy won't that be a kick in the jimmy if he wins again? Old as dirt, possibly senile and a mastermind criminal wins back to back terms against the best and brightest the Republicans have to offer...
Do you ever ask yourself why an old, senile crook is the best presidential candidate the Democratic party has to offer? Where are the young Democrats who should be running for POTUS in 2024? There were none in 2016, none in 2020 and seems to be none in 2024.
He got caught? That's news to everyone paying attention.
I'm pretty sure most people are asking themselves that question.
There were several in 2016 and 2020, they just didn't get as many Primary votes as Biden did. I voted for Amy Klobuchar in the 2020 WI Primary. I voted against Trump in the 2020 General Election.
I know, its amazing how many people aren't paying attention. I guess liberals think that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, smells like a duck, its a fire hydrant.
So are you saying Joe got caught OR that Joe looks guilty? I mean if Joe actually got caught we could be celebrating Joe going to trial, instead of just debating why Joe is a shitty candidate.
Perhaps conservatives should clean their own house before worrying about the liberals? This first Republican Primary debate already looks like a shit show. I expect the number of liberals hate watching the debate to exceed the number of conservative voters who haven't made up their mind already.
Joe is caught, the problem is the Worm aka Merrick Garlin isn't going to prosecute him. They will get around to impeaching his ass when the time is right.
The worst Republican candidate is ten times better the Ole Joe, even fat boy Christy.
Interesting theory. By the precedent set by Trump's former AG, sitting Presidents can't be prosecuted while in office. Then again... I don't see the Republican led House voting on Article of Impeachment either. They don't even need to much more than an excuse.
Hmmm... looking at current aggregate polling would suggest otherwise... As far as current potential nominees go, I'll follow along. I think Christy will pick up steam as we actually get into it next year.
No. It's a long standing DOJ guidline that Mueller said could be ignored if circumstances warranted. Trump's AG had nothing to do with the creation of that guideline.
Some are willing to make up stuff in their abject hatred for Trump.
Didn't Muller's report refer to Barr's legal paper on the guideline? And IF there is real evidence why aren't Articles being voted on in the House?
EDIT: Then there is this:
The OLC in 1973 issued the opinion that a sitting President should not be indicted. The Clinton admin reexamined the issue in 2000 and came to the same conclusion.
Then there is this:
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
This is a silly Republican fantasy. Biden isn’t going to quit and the Democratic Party is not going to abandon him in favor of someone else.
Republicans love to imagine that this fairy tale will occur, but there is no reason to believe that the party in power would suddenly abandon the incumbent president. This is particularly so with Biden, who got elected in the first place, based largely on superior name recognition relative to other Democratic contenders. In 2020, the Democrats went out of their way to nominate him because no one else running was famous enough to beat Trump.
Republicans want Biden to run.
Would they not want someone other than a high-name-recognition incumbent to run? It is not Kennedy or Harris. How about Mayor Pete Buttigieg — would they not prefer he run? Or maybe 81 year old Bernie Sanders again? Prop up Hillary Clinton for another go?
Who do the Ds have who would poll better than Biden? I suspect that is the problem they face.
There are good D candidates for PotUS (e.g. Tim Walz) but they show no signs of running.
Why would Republicans not want someone who polls worse than Biden?
I think that’s delusion. If Biden is such a gift to Republican dreams of retaking the White House, then who would they fear?
Who? Yes, Biden might be more formidable than Kamala Harris or AOC, but most Democratic Governors/Senators/Representatives would be a tougher opponent.
You cannot think of any D who polls worse than Biden?
Yes they would. Ergo my criticism of the D party in their failure to persuade Biden to not run and leave the slot open for a much better candidate.
Any number of Democrats would do better. It's not like they will lose votes with the base if its some other democrat, and an articulate Democrat without Biden's baggage could only do better with people whose vote is up for grabs.
I mentioned Harris or AOC. Seems like this is very clear "Yes, Biden might be more formidable than Kamala Harris or AOC, but most Democratic Governors/Senators/Representatives would be a tougher opponent"
You asked who? If you were sure of Harris or AOC why ask?
So why would Rs not want someone who polls worse than Biden?
Ok, but I already asked you who that could be? How about three names?
Did I say they wouldn't? I don't know how this is so hard to understand. Republicans would rather run against Biden than just about any other Democrat. They would prefer to run against a Democrat worse than Biden. But Rashida Talib is unlikely to win the nomination. They would be unhappy if Biden is replaced by any of the other hundreds of Democrats who would present a more significant challenge.
Michelle Obama, Gray Davis, Tim Walz, JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, Tony Evers, Tim Kaine, Michael Bennett, Jared Polis, Amy Klobacher, etc..
It's a real long list.
Really? Of all the Ds, you think that Biden is close to the top of the list of Ds most likely to lose to an R?
I am not the one having a problem understanding the basics here Sean.
Well of course the Rs do not want a candidate superior to Biden. That was not the question. You seem to think it is difficult to find an inferior candidate. That is where we differ. It is very likely that there exist hundreds of Ds better than Biden but there are tens of millions worse (as a candidate who could win).
Of all the D's with a realistic chance to be nominated, yes. Do you think Rashida Talib or Maxine Waters or the homeless dropout who votes D in exchange for walking around money has a good chance at the nomination?
e having a problem understanding the basics here Sean.
Your posts belie that. This isn't that hard to understand. I don't know how you are struggling so much with it.
You seem to think it is difficult to find an inferior candidate.
There are certainly millions of crazy or explicitly racist Democrats who would be inferior. They have zero to no chance of being nominated. .
No. Why do you ask? I have stated (observed, really) that there are plenty of Ds worse the Biden (as candidates). You seem to agree with my original point so why are you putting on this appearance of an 'argument'?
Flat out: there are plenty of Ds who are inferior to Biden so why, as you claim, would the Rs want only Biden to run? Just take your mention of Maxine Waters as a fine example of someone the Rs would loooooove to run against.
Correct. As I noted. And they would not be nominated because they are inferior; but they are in fact Ds eligible for the presidency. The Rs would love to run against them.
The problem with your argument is that you are on the wrong side of truth. It is a losing proposition to claim that Biden is the worst potential candidate for the D nomination. There are plenty of Ds —even if we limit to those who could win the nomination— that the Rs would prefer to face than a high-name-recognition incumbent.
I really think a sizeable amount of Democrats realize Biden is too old and Kamala is too stupid, so an alternative candidate could easily emerge as yet more Biden mistakes are made.
No doubt the Ds know Biden is waaaaay past his prime and it is clear from the polls that Harris remains unpopular.
The problem is, who would be the alternative to Biden? And what is taking so damn long for a viable alternative to emerge? (At this point I would be quite surprised if a viable alternative emerged.)
I think Biden has to first step down from a second term run to clear the field for an alternative.
No doubt?
lol.
Yes. People can see that an 82 year old taking the oath of office for a four year term is a 'past his prime' situation.
Just like the GOP can see that Trump should never be given the powers of the presidency but they are going to vote for him nonetheless.
Parties engage in irrational behavior because they are driven more by emotion than strategy and both the D and R parties have no effective leader who can devise and execute a strategy.
That was true 4 years ago and he still got elected. The people chasing him in the primaries were also old as dirt. The one big thing being about old af is that at least more people have heard of the candidate. That’s all that seems to matter anymore.
And he is likely to get reelected as an octogenarian.
Thus this:
The parties are more of afraid of losing than they are inspired to follow a leader with vision and competency to victory.
Sure, but how does propping up Trump lead to victory for the GOP?
The Ds have a similar problem, but not even close to the problem level of the GOP. The Ds could win with Biden, the GOP almost certainly will lose with Trump. Thus supporting Trump is counter-productive (and thus irrational).
The idea in 2020 was that Biden was a safe moderate that Independents could vote for.
A few ways. First, he's a known quantity. He has won before. That's more than anyone else running can say. Second, he has proven that any scandal that would destroy an ordinary politician just bounces off of him. And finally, he already has 5 or 6 times the support of his closest competitor.
At this point, it would take a massive unified effort from every other corner of the party for even one other candidate to even challenge him. That's not going to happen, of course. That kind of unity of purpose just isn't there.
That is a fine argument for why Trump is supported for the GOP nomination.
How does propping up Trump lead to victory (implicitly in the general election) for the GOP?
That really hasn't changed.
Like I said, it's the mindset of "afraid to lose" > "inspired to win."
No one is inspiring the party in that way. The best anyone can do is get the lunatic fringe excited. No one is out there championing the classic Republican governmental or economic values. Trump and his hopeful emulators are all running on which aspects of society cause the evangelicals the most angst.
And I think your premise misstates the situation. The party isn't "propping up Trump." They don't need to. He does that just fine all by himself. They're just so afraid of losing that they won't try to "prop up" a better alternative.
“…they won't try to "prop up" a better alternative.”
…leaving them trying to “perp up” the most fractured candidate in our history.
But now Biden has a record as a President.
And it isn't exactly a stellar one.
But in reality, although many Democrats may know that he is too old, I don't think that will prevent very many from voting for him.
Independents may feel differently, though.
Which is certainly no guarantee that they won't vote for Biden.
Indeed.
The GOP props up Trump by making (and at times utterly absurd) excuses for him, indicating they will vote for him on polls, and, importantly, by not challenging him on his misdeeds and not focusing on an alternative.
Do they not see that being afraid of losing in the general election is causing them to put forth a nominee who will almost certainly lose?
I am saying D loyalists are going to vote for him in spite of his age, etc. Just like R loyalists will vote for Trump in spite of everything he has done.
I know exactly what you wrote, hence my apropos reply.