“Yes, but I didn’t swallow.”
‘No one was asking you Mr. Romney.’
If the RNC had that sort of power, Trump would not have been the candidate in 2016.
And the DNC doesnt have much either.
They both have some $ to spend, that’s about it,
The DNC has superdelegates who could in theory nominate an alternate candidate at the convention if a crazed ideologue managed to capture less than a landslide victory in the primaries.
Edit: This may be a hijack from the main question of the OP, so I’ll spoiler this for those who don’t care to read it.
For one thing, incumbency provides a massive advantage to most Congresspersons.
In the House, where nearly all Representatives represent one portion (district) of a state, the districts, which are drawn up by the individual states, are frequently heavily gerrymandered, and are “safe” districts for either the Republican or the Democratic party.
Very few House districts are truly competitive anymore, and thus, once a Representative is elected, if they’re happy with serving at that level (i.e., they don’t want to try for a Senate seat, a Cabinet post, or a Governorship), they can probably serve for as long as they want, getting re-elected every two years, unless they manage to get convicted of corruption, or get re-districted out of their seats (districts are potentially re-drawn every decade, with new Census numbers).
In the Senate, for one thing, they serve six-year terms. For another, relatively few states are “purple” (i.e., relatively equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters), and so, in many states, once a Senator has the majority party’s support, they can probably hold the seat for as long as they wish (again, barring scandal or seeking a different office).
In the Senate, the purple/swing states can be more competitive, and sometimes have very different Senators: for instance, Wisconsin’s two Senators are the Trump loyalist (and generally horrible person) Ron Johnson, and the very liberal (and first LGBT person elected to the Senate) Tammy Baldwin.
There’s not enuf of them to change any but a rather close elections, but I suppose so.
Please explain to an Aussie
I’ll try…
Core Fair Dinkum! Walla-Wally Roo! Stove-pipe up the Wingo! Right Chazwagger, Mate! Bingus Bongo down the Pikey!
You forgot Shrimp on the Barbie. (Hey, topical to pop culture too)
Orr right ole mate, decent effort, give yah props for the try.
But next time, less made up bullshit, more Strine. Got me? 
We had 16 straight years of presidents born in 1946, almost pulled out of it with a president born in 1960, then snapped back to 1946 for 4 years, and then went even further back to 1943. The way things are going, we’re going to have 28 years under the rule of men born in the mid-1940’s, with 20-24 of that being from 1946 alone.
What the fuck is up with that decade?
Tom Brokaw told them they were the Greatest Generation and by gum they aren’t gonna let the rest of us forget it.
The Greatest Generation was their parents.
The question has already been well answered (including by @BigT early on), but I just want to point out that “Why Trump?” and “Why Biden?” are two different questions, because there are two different sets of people making those decisions. And that part of the answer to “Why Biden?” (in 2020 and in 2024) is (as @Exapno_Mapcase and maybe others pointed out) “Because Trump.”
Biden’s a pretty lousy public speaker, simultaneously gaffe-prone and bellicose.
But as a quiet, behind-the-scenes politician – goddamn.
Multiple times during his administration–most notably with the infrastructure bill, but on other occasions as well–he’s managed an end-run around the most obstreperously dysfunctional Congress in living memory. He’s gotten laws passed that left the MAGAs wondering, “What the hell just happened?”
He’s very, very good at this sort of politicking; and while I have pretty major disagreements with him, I gotta give him credit for his superior political chops.
I was wondering the other day how things might’ve been different if Biden had been president in 2008, and Obama veep; would Democrats have kept the White House in 2016, and would Obama have learned some of Biden’s negotiating skills, and added them to his incredible oratory skills?
Great post in its entirety. I just wanted to amplify this bit of yours.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
–John Kenneth Galbraith
Trump – like other RW demagogues – has tremendous appeal to the mouth-breathers, because he tells them that they shouldn’t have to care about less fortunate people, the planet, the environment, or minorities.
He doesn’t ask them to be ‘better people’ in any way, shape or form, the way that most past Presidents have. He encourages them to be proud of their baser instincts and worst qualities.
In short, he applauds them for their “religiosity” while simultaneously absolving them from any need to actually be decent human beings.
Before that, 1953-1993 we had 40 straight years of people who held rank in WW2, from the Supreme Commander down to an Academy midshipman and the youngest flight cadet in the fleet. Heck, skip Ike for generational reasons and you still have 32 years of people who were junior officers in the 1942-46 range. A large cohort of people who had a lot of support networks to lean upon on the way up and then for staying up.
The first-batch Boomers were many, and within those many of them were born into or else rose to positions in society that again placed them well in the pool of potential aspirants – succesful politicians in their own states (Clinton), political/business class nepo babies (W, Trump). When Clinton got elected, he was generationally the Obama of his time, the first Boomer President, who would turn 50 in office.
(Obama as a Boomer/X cusp president could have started a new wave, but in 2016 the early-Boomers were still reasonably spry and electable, and in its wisdom the Democrat electorate decided that the would-be successor could again go back a generation, with Bernie or Hillary.)
Gretchen Whitmer? Cory Booker? Josh Shapiro? All vital, talented people who should be running the country today. Do we really have to wait until they turn 70 before they get a shot at President?
I have no problem with VP Harris, but sometimes I think a Biden/Jon Stewart ticket would be a lock. I wonder (wish?) if he has any political aspirations.
And it doesn’t help that “gaffes” get re-played as quick soundbites over and over again, while relatively few people go out of their way to listen to longer speeches Biden gives. Five seconds out of an 8 minute talk doesn’t really tell you what he’s actually like. Here’s him talking for 8 minutes or so just recently:
He’s not super-dramatic, but he gets the message across, clearly and consistently. Now, I’m sure someone will jump in with “Oh, he’s just reading off a teleprompter!” as a rebuttal. But here’s the thing: someone who really is in metal decline can’t even do that. My mother was diagnosed with mild cognitive decline several years ago, and I’ve watched her progression on that, and even though she’s no where near as bad off as some other people I’ve seen, she couldn’t pull this off. I’ve sat with her while she tried to read a one-page letter, and she couldn’t get through just that without back-tracking, re-reading lines over and over again, and verbally trying to puzzle some things out. And my mother never had such troubles reading when she was younger.
Here’s another example, starting about the 3 minute mark. He’s a bit more animated, tells a few jokes, and again, stays on message.
