I don’t disagree that much (but probably not all) of the inflation problem was not the fault of Biden and his policies. COVID fucked up the global economy for years, and it was worse in many other countries than it was here.
But, again, the point is that inflation was, for several years, worse than it had been in years, which damaged consumer confidence, and rightly or wrongly, the guy in the White House gets it in the teeth, favorability-wise, when that happens.
James Carville wasn’t wrong: “it’s the economy, stupid.” When people feel that the economy is bad, they are likely to vote against an incumbent, and Carville was saying that, when your opponent is overseeing a country in bad economic shape, that’s what you hammer on.
Yes, no kidding, as they were in 2020, and I did not claim that they weren’t Trump’s work. The third one, which directly affected consumer spending in 2021 (and maybe into 2022), was supported by, and signed by, Biden.
ARPA was, in total, $1.9 trillion dollars, but it appears that the direct stimulus payments amounted to about $400 billion. $400 billion is doing a lot in the economy; it is the equivalent of 1.7% of the U.S.'s entire GDP for 2021.
And, as per my earlier link, the Federal Reserve’s analysis did determine that the three rounds of stimulus payments (and yes, in pedantic redundant disclosure, only ONE of those three payments was made by the Biden Administration) were a significant factor in U.S. inflation.
She has no experience winning a general election in a constituency Trump won. Winning primaries, while very relevant to whether she can win the nomination, is irrelevant if you want to beat MAGA.
The Democrats are incredibly lucky that there is such a big choice of candidates who have proven ability to win in constituencies that also go for MAGA candidates and who aren’t centrists. It would be political malpractice to nominate AOC because her ability to win purple constituencies is a complete unknown.
There also is the issue of being able to bring your state with you. My recollection of past presidential cycles is that there usually wasn’t a single viable Democrat like that. You had to pick someone from Illinois or New York or California or Massachusetts or Delaware because that’s all there was. Now we have half a dozen from swing states (or a red state winner, Bashear).
The only one I (and, I know, few others) would consider, who is not from a swing state, is Andy Kim, because he ran so far ahead of Trump in a Trumpy congressional district. By my criteria, this would have to be balanced against him coming from New Jersey, which is not a presidential swing state.
AFAICT, no presidential candidate has “brought their state with them” since Bill Clinton. Texas would have gone red whether or not Dubya ran. Ditto for Illinois with Obama and Delaware for Biden. Trump didn’t win New York in any of his three campaigns. On the losing side, Gore and Romney both lost their home states, while Kerry, McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Harris were all from safe states.
I don’t think there’s really a significant number of voters who are going to vote for a candidate on the basis of being from the same state as them.
I don’t give a shit about Trump in this conversation.
You insist that Biden is unfairly blamed for inflation during his term, and have been trying to downplay just how rough recession was, and for how long (“one years inflation”).
I mostly agree with you, that inflation was mostly not Biden’s fault, but he did champion and sign a stimulus bill, which likely did contribute, to some degree, to the inflation situation.
Yes, Trump signed two stimulus bills, too. That’s not the point.
Was it ever in doubt that a Democrat would win California? I don’t remember a single time post-Reagan when it wasn’t called for the Democrat the instant the polls closed.
Hillary Clinton won by 30 points over Trump in 2016
Biden won by 29 points over Trump in 2020
Harris won by 20 points over Trump in 2024
Gist of it is, in the last five elections, every Democratic candidate won California by 20+ points, and Harris (the one resident of the state among the five) had the narrowest margin of victory.
Dukakis wasn’t a great candidate, and Bush the Elder was essentially running as a continuation of the Reagan years (while also promising a “kinder and gentler” nation). Bush won 40 states, and 426 electoral votes.
AFAICT Kelly comes across as warm and intelligent and likable in interviews. But he’s wooden and boring in speeches and on the stump. Luckily, public speaking is a skill one can improve, so hopefully he’s working on improving it. On paper he’s a great candidate. We’ll see.
I agree, and despite the fact that people always talk about it, I especially don’t think anyone is going to vote for a ticket because the Vice-Presidential candidate is from their State!
“Research is mixed on the home state bonus afforded by running mates; if any effect does exist, it is likely small—although just a small effect could be decisive in a key state.”