Obamacare alone makes him transformative. That genie will never go back in the bottle. Even if an insane GOP majority repeals it and passes some half-assed version of it, that won’t last and the trajectory to true single payer will continue. I can think of no major, popular public benefit that ever truly went away. It’s the nature of such things.
And it all started with the ACA, and that’s a big deal. One might say a big fucking deal. 
I don’t live in the U.S. I’ve heard a lot about ACA in the past 15 years, but I also still hear a lot - including here on this board - about Americans being burdened by massive medical bills of the type that would be unimaginable in a country with socialized medicine. Did ACA really work? Has it made a difference?
Agreed. And of course he got almost no credit for it.
Well, some sort of healthcare reform was definitely needed, but we could argue all day about whether the ACA was the right answer. It might have been the best that could have been achieved under the circumstances.
Which really ought to put this idea to bed permanently. But alas.
It hasn’t since Obama?
I don’t think she’s disqualifyingly old or anything. But at 63, she’d basically be the age Obama is today. In a vacuum, I’d rather have someone who is closer in age to Obama when he was elected.
The ACA “worked” in the sense that many millions of people who were uninsured now have health insurance, and that it made insurance better in some key ways.
For example, it was possible before the ACA to simply be denied coverage by every possible provider because you had a preexisting condition.
It was also possible to lose your job because you could no longer work due to a medical issue, and then when trying to get new insurance now that your employer isn’t providing it to you, you’d be uninsurable.
On the other hand, the biggest problem with the American health insurance industry is that as a for profit industry it adds a bunch of unnecessary steps between you and your healthcare, and that the purpose of these steps is for additional entities to make a profit out of the process, which by necessity makes it much more expensive. And because of the strength of health insurance company lobbyists, the bits of ACA that would have had the teeth to tackle the insurance industry were stripped out of the equation.
So many Americans are still underinsured, or even uninsured (despite the penalties this imposes on taxes). Some states went further, like the Covered California program; others very intentionally did not.
Since it may have been my post that started this, I wanted to clarify that I wasn’t advocating for running Michele Obama for President.
What I do think is that if either Joe or Kamala dropped out for any reason, I think she’d be a good choice for the VP position. She has a lot of name recognition, she’s well liked among Democrats and Independents and i think she might drive turnout. Is it a little bit of a stunt? Yes it is, but so what? Stunts like this often work.
My personal opinion is that President of the United States is a sales position. The person in that job will have a factory of advisors who are responsible for crafting the product, and the President certainly should have a lot of input into that process, but their job is to sell those policies to the American people, to make people want them.
And I don’t think the Democrats do a good job with this. I think they have a good product, that’s why I always vote Democrat, but they suck at sales.
I think that’s a fair opinion, actually. And his being the first Black president was also of major importance.
I guess it’s that he talked such a big game about hope and didn’t really stand up to the forces of evil all that, um, forcefully, is what puts the “not transformative” label in my brain, probably unfairly.
Obama was the fifth-youngest president, though:
Late 50s and early 60s seems the norm. George Washington was 57 when he took office.
I think how young someone seems is more important than their actual age.
That’s all well and good. I am not at all opposed to Kamala Harris being the nominee.
I’d like to be presented with some options in order to determine whether or not she is my first choice, rather than just being told “she did a good job as VP, now it’s her turn”.
The idea that Joe Biden could be replaced at this point is completely unrealistic and undesirable. Are you a Democrat?
I would say the exact opposite (not that I want tech moguls or billionaires, screw those guys 
), the democratic party has consistently not got it, when it comes to selecting presidential candidates. Yeah in a perfect world you should select someone is experienced in how goverment operates, and can do the job of president well, but we are far far from that world. Its basically a high school popularity contest, choose someone who can be inspirational. They lucked onto this with Obama (not that he was content free or bad at his job) they had someone who could actually inspire. With Kerry, Clinton (Hillary, I think Bill did decent job on the inspiring front), and Biden you have effective politicians,who have earned their stripes in politiking over the decades (in the process building up enough support in the party to win their primary), but also have all the compromises and general uninspiring vibes of a career politician .
The GOP worked it out with Trump, admittedly for old racist white men, but he sure as hell can inspire them, and that’s enough to get him to be president.
It is not going to happen for a whole host of reasons (not least because it would be an awful idea to change presidential candidate to someone who’s not an incumbent). But I would be ecstatic if they choose Michelle Obama as it would mean they have finally got it, choose a goddamned candidate who can tell a good story and inspire people.
How well do non-politicians fare in presidential campaigns? Conveniently, we’ve just had a series of illustrative examples.
Remember the crowd of Republican candidates in 2016 so large that they had to split them for debates? They included neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Neither was taken seriously. Billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, talk-show host Larry Elder, and businessman Perry Johnson put themselves into the 2024 race.
Democratic candidates in 2016 included Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, Businessmen Rocky de la Fuente and Willie Wilson, and lawyers Michael Steinberg and John Wolfe Jr. 2020 brought in a pair of billionaires, Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, and the unclassifiable Marianne Williamson.
None of these failures were Trump, admittedly. He possessed wide-spread name recognition, the vocal persuasiveness of a cult leader, and an uncanny ability to lead and follow the voters simultaneously. Who else in the country shares these traits? Elon Musk and Oprah, maybe, though they’re untested on the third criterion. Do we want to test them?
AOC and Taylor Swift were born two months apart in 1989. They’re therefore eligible for the presidency this year. Maybe they’re the future. Somebody young has to be. But not in 2024.
To be honest, one reason I don’t favor her is that I’m hoping for someone who displays charisma and excites people in the way that Bill Clinton or Barack Obama did.
I would not say completely unrealistic. There are reasons it could happen without intent. It is quite Machiavellian to do it with intent. But in the world of politics, the schemes and deals can get very odd indeed.
One could set Biden as a sort of sacrificial goat. He and Trump have at it. If Biden does not do well. Make the last minute substitution. Due to medical issues or such? Someone such as Michelle Obama has a good reputation. Seems an intelligent capable woman. Or Hillary even? Not who I would wish. There are options. It might even garner sympathy votes. The party lost their candidate. The replacement has not faced any failures or gaffs during the campaign. They come in clean. Trump will still carry any gaffs he has made. The new kid has seen the gaffs the pitfalls. Can now avoid them and speak to what the campaign has revealed so far that the voters want.
I vote for the ones who seem to have the better ideas for the times. Especially if they have proven in the past that they will actually try and make those ideas happen. I have voted for several different parties and also independents.
I also worked for a campaign. They won.
You talk about a “last minute substitution” as if that’s something that can casually be done. What is the legal mechanism for changing the party candidate after the primaries and caucuses?
If the candidate dies or is totally medically incapacitated for life. Would the party have to simply not run anyone?
I never said or implied casually.
Biden has exhibited some mental fitness issues. Not too terrible so far. But it can be used. There are excuses that can be made.
“Mental fitness issues” is just the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) that Trump and the Republicans are using to try to defeat Biden. (Ironic when Trump really is mentally deficient.)
I call bullshit.
And the generation-defining Presidential candidate for that cohort is likely to be someone who is not currently a “celebrity” figure, who probably will come after three or four terms of GenX types or else be an early outlier but then have a reversion to the mean. But who knows, who may yet come up and rise Barack-Obama-like surprising everybody.
I get the desire for someone who will crush the enthusiasm gap. Does though seem to recapitulate the old aphorism about how Republicans Fall In Line, Democrats want to Fall In Love.
On a purely bio mechanical basis, I think Trumps brain is operating better than Biden. But what each of those brains come out with? I wish each side had a different candidate.