To me, a lot of the “Biden shouldn’t run” arguments boil down to “There has to be somebody else who’s got an equal or better chance of winning, even at this late stage, right?!” I think some are imagining the comparison to millions of Americans, and not the teeny tiny pool of well known Democratic politicians.
I want Trump to lose in November, but I hope he makes it extremely, uncomfortably, close for Biden on Election Night so that the DNC gets a clue.
Sadly, they’ll probably buckle down on exactly the opposite takeaway: “If even a boring old guy like Biden only managed to eke out victory against Trump, imagine how badly a young, inspirational candidate would have fared? We need a 90-year old next time.”
A clue about what?
No, we need this to be a clear decisive victory against MAGA. Anything close and we are going to be facing even more chaos than leading up to January 6th from Trump and his acolytes. And they will have had 4 years to improve on their coup strategy.
Won’t the guys playing defense have had 4 years to improve on, uh, counter-coup strategy?
Oh, yeah. The younger McCarthy was and the younger Johnson is doing so much better at leading the country than elderly Pelosi ever did.
You keep pounding that too old button, it’s gonna break.
Of course McCarthy and Johnson suck, they’re fucking Republicans! I honestly have no idea what point you’re trying to make here, and I doubt you do either.
Your doubt is duly noted and given the full weight it deserves.
Yes. And it will be a Democratic AKA law-abiding administration in power at least through Jan. 20, which will change things quite a bit from last time, if God forbid there is a next time.
I see a lot of people minimizing the issue, and the subtext seems to be that we shouldn’t talk about it because it plays into the right-wing “Biden is senile / decrepit” narrative, or else because we have no alternative and so shouldn’t criticize our only chance.
It is too late to find another candidate, barring emergency, but I am unconvinced by the deeply held belief that the Incumbent Advantage is in play no matter what, nor by the belief that “Biden defeated Trump once and so is uniquely qualified (rather than potentially qualified) to do it again.”
The DNC doesn’t pick candidates, running mates, or determine the candidates campaign strategy. What do you want them to do?
Why do you think the DNC has any influence? It’s an arm of the Biden political team. When there’s a Democratic president, especially during the 1st term, the DNC has zero power and influence except as they’re directed by the White House.
You’re really railing against Democratic voters. We Democratic voters like Biden. In general, we think he’s been a very good President. It shouldn’t be surprising that we want him to run again. It’d be shocking if we didn’t. That he has at least one flaw (gasp you mean he’s old?!? you don’t say!) doesn’t change this.
If Trump wasn’t running, Biden wouldn’t be running either. I don’t have a cite handy for that but I am pretty sure Biden has said as much publicly. Trump is the reason we can’t have nice things and there is no room for error here, making Biden the best and only choice (unless of course he somehow becomes incapacitated which certainly has a non-zero percent chance of happening).
Your hypothetical would be the cherry on top when it comes to the “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” thing Democrats sometimes do but I don’t think it would actually happen. I think if Biden wins, 2028 will bring a much younger candidate for both parties. I also think if Biden wins he won’t serve out his full term. One Trump is gone from the political scene for good (as in any or all of: dead, in jail or incapacitated via stroke/heart attack/etc.) Biden will retire.
It never isn’t amusing to me when folks talk about how the party’s, particularly the Democrats, nominate candidates as if the changes that happened in said process aren’t half a fucking century old.
Almost. What’s he going to give as the explanation for why he is running? To finish the job? Maybe, but it’s weak. I’m good at dealing with Mike Johnson? Really? Kamala’s too progressive? Obviously not. I like power? That’s a truth that cannot be uttered.
He likes the job better than he thought he would.
Why? He’s done a lot, but he’s also been thwarted by the New Know-Nothings. He’s trying to make sure Trump doesn’t come back and finish his job of wrecking the place.
Do you have a factual basis for this idea?
Beating Trump makes a man feel good that way.
He knows he can beat Trump, and I’m glad that he’s there to do it again.
Biden is a highly accomplished first term president. And with that surely comes a certain level of self assuredness. I have no doubt that he is confident that he’d make a great second term president.
I don’t care what polls may show. I think Trump is going to get killed in the election, largely on the strength of the women vote. But many republicans will also abstain from him; he’s toxic to a significant plurality of his own party.
Biden, meanwhile, likely has goals he wants to accomplish in a second term. Certainly, if he gets a Democratic Congress, then I’m sure we’d see immigration reform, at minimum. I’m expecting tonight’s state of the union speech to signal his plans.
I expect his campaign will build momentum and get much more active after the convention this summer. For now, he’s busy governing.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Busy day for me today.
I was referring to reliable yipping-in-unison of Fox, Newsmax, OANN, Alex Jones, Dinesh Souza and others who carry water for MAGAts. This propaganda garbage gets into the bloodstream of the national conversation and soon, people are parroting the talking points. I’ve watched it happen time and again.
I told you why I brought it up: Because it’s the identical old play being done on Biden as was done to Pelosi. Pelosi was a masterful Speaker of the House and her age was immaterial to her qualifications and ability for doing the job. Biden is just the same. He’s old. Not incompetent or compromised. Just old.
By the way, I watch Biden speak nearly every day. I watch his press scrums, formal speeches, off the cuff remarks. He’s fine. An occasional verbal stumble – to which we all succumb periodically – and yes, he has tripped a couple times. So have I.
I don’t know why Democrats let Republicans frame the conversations. We fall for it every time and it’s so dumb.
I didn’t mean that the NYT is a Republican paper. I meant that the NYT has been carrying water for Biden’s general election opponent. Perhaps it’s better couched as chaos agency rather than partisanship. In any case, @Derleth posted the “QED” over in the State of the Union thread. I’ll repost a bit here:
Of course, the Times is going to beat the “Biden Old” drum for as long as it can because its owner wants it to
What does that mean — practically speaking — to the editors and reporters who work for him? In my view, the message is clear:
One: You will earn my displeasure if you warn people too forcefully about the possible end to democracy at the hands of a deranged insurrectionist.
And two: You prove your value to me by trolling our liberal readers.
[snip]
We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak.
Reporting that Trump is a racist fanatic who would turn a democratic government into his personal fiefdom is not crusading, it’s journalism.
Reporting (endlessly) that Biden is old without noting that Trump is deranged is not “independent” journalism, it’s just bad journalism.