Well but that’s virtually every VP’s problem unless it’s someone who already came in as a power player like LBJ or Cheney.
You’re not wrong. However, in the case of Harris, it was pretty clear that when she was initially chosen as the running mate, it was, in part, to have a younger heir apparent to a president who would be 82 at the end of his first term; though Biden never publicly said nor promised that he would only serve one term, he did, in 2020, characterize himself as a “transition” figure, which implied (but did not overtly state) the idea of a one-term presidency:
But, by 2021, Biden was already saying that he would run for re-election; it seems to me that any thought of positioning Harris as his successor, and crafting her role as VP to publicly demonstrate her having the experience for the role, went out the window by that point.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/
Biden’s running again was one of the greatest acts of political idiocy in American history.
As the incumbent vice-president, I’m confident she would have done much better in 2024 than she did in 2020 as a relative unknown. Would she have won? Who knows? People like Shapiro, Whitmer, Beshears, Pritzker, Booker, Cooper et al. would have joined the race. I sure do wish it went down that way, though.
True, at least there would have been a chance to put them (and their proposals) all to the test before choosing —and yes, he would have wanted to announce that by summer of 2023 to give everyone a fair head start for Iowa/NH in January of ‘24.
They did in 2020. Remember, Right Wing Populism is sweeping the world, not just in the USA. It is very popular.
Right.
The one man who beat trump?
They did, but on Earth-2, where there was never a COVID-19, they wouldn’t have. In other words: they beat Trump in 2020, not because they had an amazing candidate, or an amazing strategy, but because of a unique situation. Though the Trump administration’s response to COVID was a mess, that response wasn’t the reason he lost; it was that the economy had completely gone into the tank.
And that is today–if anyone is interested in buying it.
Truman could have run anytime. The 22nd specifically exempted the president in office at the time of its’ adoption.
I was quite surprised in 2008 how few people remembered Geraldine Ferraro.
Sara Palin made a bigger splash but, her fifteen minutes seems to be over.
And if she gets the nomination will she lose again?
She starts out with her having been a loser uppermost in primary voters’ minds. So she would have to do much better than expected in primary season debates, and in head to head polling against Vance (or whoever is the GOP nomination front-runner) to turn her reputation around and get the nomination. Under those unlikely circumstances, she would have good chance of November success.
I doubt she will get the nomination but see no harm in her trying.
It’s not like the Democratic field was already full of viable candidates.
That depends on who the Republican candidate is, ha ha. Because what’s his name can’t run anymore. Gulp.
Highly likely in my opinion.
Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitman, both better choices. I would say Tim Walz, who’s more articulate but looks too much like an old fuddy duddy to catch fire in the preliminaries.
Oh, I forgot, it’s too early. Also Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (don’t call her AOC, save that for after she’s elected) isn’t old enough to run (unfair!).
I, too, am excited to try again to demonstrate for the third time that America will not elect a woman. It only cost us our country, no big deal.
It’s almost certainly going to be JD Vance, and that’s bad news for the Democrats because Vance is sharp, comes across well on camera, and is a very strong debater. Yeah, he’s also a lying scumbag, but that doesn’t matter in elections. Only charisma matters. The Democrats need to nominate someone more charismatic than Vance. The only two I can think of offhand are Newsom and Buttigieg.
I believe your math is off.