It makes a lot of sense. Those who think that anything that happened between 2017 and the beginning of 2021 don’t want to hear it. It’s not like it was Trump’s idea. Space Command existed. It was mostly within the Air Force but other branches had a piece. The Space Command mission would continue to grow bigger and further away from the rest of the Air Force mission. Did Space Force need to happen right now? Probably not. Within a few years it would be, if not necessary, a very good idea.
That’s because Trump has a group of cultists and every Republican candidate who doesn’t have the last name Christie is careful to not attack Trump and instead pander to Trump’s cult. And to do that, you have to be complimentary to Trump and not point out his constant blunders showing potential cognitive decline and/or mental instability.
Biden doesn’t have a cult. There is no GROAM movement.
(Get Rid Of American Malarkey)
The fact is we have no data at this point. No caucuses or primaries have been held. So we have no idea how Trump will do.
I believe that Mijin is referring to polls, but of course at this point those polls aren’t particularly useful.
If you do dig them up, and they are just as you write, those 2011 think-pieces are wrong – because the situations in 2011 and 2023 are so different. Making the same arguments in 2011 that Carville-types make today would have made no sense.
For one thing, Romney was not always ahead in the 2011 GOP nomination polls. So it would be wrong to treat him as a prohibitive front-runner in 2011. And it would be correct to do that in 2023 with Trump.
Obama went up and down in the 2011 general election national horse race polling averages – mostly of the time he was up – and was only behind Romney for a couple weeks in October. That’s totally different from the 2023 situation where the polling averages just don’t move. If someone wrote that the polls in 2011 did not move much, they were wrong.
2023 is unique because we know who are the likely nominees, and because almost all of us have a strong opinion about which of the two is the best, or least objectionable. The closest, in the era of scientific polling, to 2023, might be 1955, but I can’t find 1955 Stevenson-Eisenhower polls.
There is one uncertainty in 2023 we didn’t have in 2011 – the uncertainty over whether one of the nominees would be running from prison. I personally don’t think Trump will spend enough time incarcerated next year for it to affect the election, but we do have that biggest known unknown.
Even though 2023 is unique, this doesn’t mean we should ignore 2011. Instead I look at the ups and downs in 2011 polls, and the much lesser ups and down in 2023, and Trump’s history of outperforming polls, and reflect on what that tells us.
P.S. I’m not in favor of Cenk Uygur running! It makes no sense for a whole other reason – the unfortunate native-born restriction in the U.S. Constitution. Also, I think Biden is a prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic nomination. I think that Jeffries and Schumer should have convinced Biden to drop out. Maybe they privately tried and failed. In any event, it looks to be too late now.
And support who, exactly? Who is this amazing Liberal Avenger of a candidate who could sweep in and easily dispatch Trump, and why have they stayed out of the race in favor of Dear Abby’s grandkid, Oprah’s “spiritual advisor”, and a misogynistic vlogger?
Another long day! Before I turn in, two things:
Who is this guy (not Screamin’ Jay Hawkins, though he seems to share some of his DNA), and what does this post mean?
Also, “Americus Liberator”
my turn to go “who?”
(Turns out he was a guy who ran a silly campaign in 1968. I read about him on a Nebaska history site, hoping it would be funny, but it wasn’t, really. But one more name to use when you need a diversion and Pat Paulsen just won’t cut it.)
I just so happened to be scrolling for something to watch and happened upon C-Span showing a Cenk Uygur talk. So I tuned into the final 20 or so minutes of the show.
Maybe I’m predisposed to not like him, maybe I’m tired and cranky, I don’t know, but I was not impressed. I wasn’t too impressed with the guys in the crowd who were asking questions either though. The first two were just trying to impress the crowd with their “smart” question and the third was sputtering with excitement to be so close to Cenk. The answers to the questions were just rambling from one self congratulatory comment to another with lots of “Media Bads” thrown in for good measure. If he answered the question, I couldn’t tell. He claimed to have made a lot of predictions that have come true and he predicted that TYT will be the biggest media company in the world someday. I wouldn’t bet on him.
This is a real, concerning issue. Going all-in with Joe the President is seriously risky. Imagine if something happens in May that makes it obvious he has to bow out? That would leave the Democrats in a perilous situation, with no clear back-up.
I saw some brief footage of Ms. Harris this evening, giving a speech. She had all the fire of a cucumber. She lost the '20 primary for good reason, and party would be fools to bet on her. Perhaps they could turn to a well-known youngster like Alexandria, who I think really could go toe-to-toe with Individual-ONE, but I doubt they have the courage to take that risk.
If not Joe, who? Seems like it is better to figure that out early than to get caught pantsed. Which, quite frankly, is a good reason for allowing legitmate challenges to the incumbent (which Cenk is not). In the current context, this talk of the incumbent being “weakened” by primary challengers is absurd.
If it comes to it, and he wants to do it, throw JB Pritzker in there. He is not intimidated by Trump in the least.
How about “The Cenk Tank”?
Agreed. And I should be clear, I’m not absolutely certain that sticking with Biden is a riskier option than having a primary. It’s just where I’d put my money. I’d put it as something like 60:40.
But only because of the lateness. If challenges had happened earlier, or Biden had stepped down, I’d feel more comfortable.
Right. Although note that Cenk has said that he’s trying to provoke / encourage legitimate challenges, rather than considering himself one.
But why? I don’t understand the basis for this. Why are you so confident (even 60/40) you know better than Biden and his team, who (ISTM) have greatly exceeded expectations again and again, both as a candidate in 2020, running a nigh-flawless general election campaign, and in office since? Especially when the risk (i.e. damaging Biden) could be so catastrophic?
ISTM that getting rid of an effective incumbent president as the party nominee would require some truly drastic and desperate reasoning. I don’t see anything even a mile away from that. “He’s old” and “he seems to have lost a step” doesn’t come close to qualifying. Meaningless polling this early certainly doesn’t. What else is there?
Jeffries and Schumer would of course support the Democratic nominee. As Carville says, the Democrats have a good bench.
Bernie would have lost because of the general-election-own-goal of calling himself a socialist. But now that he is too old to run, none of the likely names have that level of baggage — except maybe Harris due to association with Bidenomics. And even in her case, voters haven’t made up their minds as they have with Joe.
How much fire did Eisenhower and the Bushes have?
And Harris would probably only win the nomination if she convinced Democratic primary voters that there was a new Kamala.
AOC could certainly win the Democratic nomination if the electorate was limited to internet posters and students at elite universities. As a moderate who would have a hard time voting for her even in a general election, I have the courage to take the risk of Democrats nominating her. The risk of someone with the squad label being nominated is only slightly greater than the Cenk Uygur nomination risk.
Well firstly I would dispute that the polling is meaningless.
Yes, it may not have mattered much in past elections, but in past elections we didn’t have an opposing candidate that had committed so many (disqualifying) crimes.
It’s awful that they are tied in polls at this stage, and this is with the background of a dazzling economy…imagine if something actually goes wrong between now and November.
Secondly there’s the way he’s depicted in the media. Even channels trying to pump support for JB, like say Brian Tyler Cohen, don’t like to show him much. They will just show 4 or 5 seconds then cut to an explanation of what Biden is saying.
I get the strong sense that everybody is nervous about him getting on the debate stage and crossing every finger and toe and just hoping to get through it. With democracy on the line, this is really not where I would want to be.
As I say though, none of this is definitive…maybe we are better off not rocking the boat?
Just seem seems like vague feelings to me. And I’d much rather trust a proven campaign team than vague feelings.
Regarding the polling, I don’t think that’s fair: my position is that the polling is significant, your position is that it isn’t, neither position is more “feelings” based than the other. (Though if I had to choose, I’d say the latter… The fact that some past elections have not followed the early polling does not mean they were not important data points)
Regarding what I was saying about his appearance, this thread is a pretty good cite. Because who has even disagreed with me on that point? I talked about how we’re all watching Biden on eggshells and your response…doesn’t dispute that. Or are you disputing that, let’s hear it.
Bernie would have won.
I can say that because neither of us know whether he would have won or lost.
People in Vermont keep supporting him - why? Because he’s damn good and they know it. Anyway, any Democrat gets called a red Communist so he’s at no disadvantage.
My position on polling is based on data – there is literally zero correlation between the eventual general election results and general election polling this early. Zero. Not a shred. So it’s meaningless, unless one is basing their views on feelings alone.
But who cares? It’s still feelings vs a proven campaign team. Every candidate has some flaws – Biden’s is that he’s old and sometimes seems old. Any other Democrat would also have flaws, but they’d be different. I’ll take a proven winner with well-known flaws that didn’t work the last election over a hypothetical replacement any day.