With respect, Greg, the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden is no longer up to the job of being POTUS, and that is now based on the evidence or more than just one debate. Is a confused Biden preferable to a depraved Trump? Of course! Will the low-information swing voters who may still determine the election come to the sa…
With respect, Greg, the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden is no longer up to the job of being POTUS, and that is now based on the evidence or more than just one debate. Is a confused Biden preferable to a depraved Trump? Of course! Will the low-information swing voters who may still determine the election come to the same conclusion? I'm afraid they may not. Is there still time for the Dems to come up with a better nominee? . . . I hope so?
It's worth remembering that other countries run general election campaigns in weeks, not months. I think it's also worth remembering that many swing voters are "double haters" who have been clamoring for an alternative to both candidates.
It seems odd to me. The bar of being up to the job of being president is being held up differently for the person actually doing the job, than an unknown imaginary candidate who would replace him.
I think it is fair to say that he may not be the most effective campaign or. Or two question that he has the ability to leave for four more years, but you can’t say he can’t do the job when he is doing it.
There are two considerations here. 1. Is Biden up to the job for four more years and 2. Can he beat Trump? As to #1, if you know anything about people in their 80s (three of my sibs are), being able to do the job today, at 81 years old, does not prove they can do the job at 82 or 83 or 85, so even though he's doing the job now, you can't say he will.
I hear you. Your first paragraph, though, applies to every single Presidential election. We always have to wonder if a fresh face would do better than an incumbent.
Obama was a fresh face. Bill Clinton was once a fresh face. Heck, even Trump and Reagan were once fresh faces. New unknowns beat incumbents fairly often.
They were both introduced onto the national stage well before they had run for POTUS. Reagan and trump were not fresh faces when they first ran for POTUS. They were well known nationally.
Obama was challenger to HRC for the D nomination in 2007-2008. He was not a challenger to Bush, who was term limited. Bill Clinton did challenge GHBush successfully in 1992. One of the reasons why he ran is because other Dems thought, right after Operation Desert Storm, that Bush was unbeatable. Mario Cuomo and Dick Gephardt were among those.
Correct about Obama. My point was there are only a couple of instances where there's been a serious challenger to an incumbent president within his own party and it has only led to the incumbent's party losing. Reagan vs Ford in 1976, Ford lost. Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980. Carter lost. Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992. Bush lost. Not sure I'm ready to test this again with everything that's at stake in this election.
Add Eugene McCarthy vs LBK in 1968. Yes, history shows us that the divided party loses the general. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt put it to the 1940 delegates where the convention was at a standstill and bordered on outright revolt, this is no ordinary time.
"You must know that this is the time when all good men and women give every bit of service and strength to their country that they have to give. This is the time when it is the United States that we fight for, the domestic policies that we have established as a party that we must believe in, that we must carry forward, and in the world we have a position of great responsibility.
"We cannot tell from day to day what may come. This is no ordinary time. No time for weighing anything except what we can do best for the country as a whole, and that responsibility rests on each and every one of us as individuals" (https://fdrlibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/found-in-the-archives-9/).
The Dems united behind Biden in 2020 after his SC win. Pete B won IA and Bernie won NH & NV. No one thought either of them could beat Trump. But they thought Biden could, and once he had that win under his belt, they united. My bet is they will do the same in 2024, when the threat of a Trump win is so much greater than it was in 2020. He hadn't waged his coup yet.
Perhaps it will be our generation's Eleanor Roosevelt - Michele Obama - who's words will shift the disagreeable Dems.
As usual, SandyG, you've got my vote on your thinking. "No ordinary time" now being scored by the "disagreeable Dems". Things seem to be changing with every passing second, but I think it's 50/50 whether Biden goes or stays. He's determined to make that decision himself. Even as the hounds circle closer each hour. I think it's actually possible he refuses to budge. Incredibly.
I'd love to see the excitement and energy of a lightening primary, as described by the Ragin' Cajun Carville. And a convention that wouldn't be just a pro-forma bore. But I agree Dems are likely to choose to work together in the same spirit of expediency and good sense they showed in 2020.
If and when Joe does cede the stage to Kamala, Dems unite, get on board and fight like hell for her. No prima donnas holding up the show because their turn will have to wait. No Hollywood holdouts griping in editorials. Misers re-open their wallets. I think all of this is absolutely possible.
Thank you, Memo! Agree all of it is absolutely possible and, as Otto von Bismarck put it, “politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”
So who is the challenger this time? Biden has the D nomination locked up, only he can alter the situation, should he decide to step down (though he already said he would allow his delegates to vote for whoever). The problem for most Dems, other than Harris, is the lack of recognition and exposure, nationwide.
I completely agree with your assessment and that's how it should be in a normal, healthy, primary where actual voters choose their nominee. The voters picked Obama and he proved to overwhelmingly be the right choice. Don't forget, many of the same Dems pushing for Biden's ouster now were the one's propping up Hillary back then. They also pushed out Franken without giving him a trial. Pushing Biden out for anybody else may sound good on paper to the donors and Democratic "elites" but would not be a democratic move.
I'm calling a false equivalency here, Greg D, between the Franken ouster (a disgraceful move that has forever hurt the Democratic Party), and the concerned call for Biden to step down because of the declining health and coherence we can see him suffering.
It is a democratic move because many of us voted for Biden in the 2020 primary with the understanding that he would be a one-term president. Well, the term is ending, and many of us would like to see the torch passed, and our current Vice President should be the receiver. She has earned it, and she can show the world that the forces of racism and misogyny can be defeated at the highest level in this country.
Well said David! The other day Jon Stewart complained about how France conducts two elections in a month. Britain conducts one in two months while ours starts after each election.
With respect, Greg, the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that Biden is no longer up to the job of being POTUS, and that is now based on the evidence or more than just one debate. Is a confused Biden preferable to a depraved Trump? Of course! Will the low-information swing voters who may still determine the election come to the same conclusion? I'm afraid they may not. Is there still time for the Dems to come up with a better nominee? . . . I hope so?
It's worth remembering that other countries run general election campaigns in weeks, not months. I think it's also worth remembering that many swing voters are "double haters" who have been clamoring for an alternative to both candidates.
It seems odd to me. The bar of being up to the job of being president is being held up differently for the person actually doing the job, than an unknown imaginary candidate who would replace him.
I think it is fair to say that he may not be the most effective campaign or. Or two question that he has the ability to leave for four more years, but you can’t say he can’t do the job when he is doing it.
There are two considerations here. 1. Is Biden up to the job for four more years and 2. Can he beat Trump? As to #1, if you know anything about people in their 80s (three of my sibs are), being able to do the job today, at 81 years old, does not prove they can do the job at 82 or 83 or 85, so even though he's doing the job now, you can't say he will.
#2 is the only one that matters.
I hear you. Your first paragraph, though, applies to every single Presidential election. We always have to wonder if a fresh face would do better than an incumbent.
Doesn't history show us that a fresh face never does better than an incumbent?
Obama was a fresh face. Bill Clinton was once a fresh face. Heck, even Trump and Reagan were once fresh faces. New unknowns beat incumbents fairly often.
They were both introduced onto the national stage well before they had run for POTUS. Reagan and trump were not fresh faces when they first ran for POTUS. They were well known nationally.
Obama and Clinton were challengers to Republican incumbents, not their own party. There is a big difference between the two.
Obama was challenger to HRC for the D nomination in 2007-2008. He was not a challenger to Bush, who was term limited. Bill Clinton did challenge GHBush successfully in 1992. One of the reasons why he ran is because other Dems thought, right after Operation Desert Storm, that Bush was unbeatable. Mario Cuomo and Dick Gephardt were among those.
Correct about Obama. My point was there are only a couple of instances where there's been a serious challenger to an incumbent president within his own party and it has only led to the incumbent's party losing. Reagan vs Ford in 1976, Ford lost. Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980. Carter lost. Buchanan vs. Bush in 1992. Bush lost. Not sure I'm ready to test this again with everything that's at stake in this election.
Add Eugene McCarthy vs LBK in 1968. Yes, history shows us that the divided party loses the general. But, as Eleanor Roosevelt put it to the 1940 delegates where the convention was at a standstill and bordered on outright revolt, this is no ordinary time.
"You must know that this is the time when all good men and women give every bit of service and strength to their country that they have to give. This is the time when it is the United States that we fight for, the domestic policies that we have established as a party that we must believe in, that we must carry forward, and in the world we have a position of great responsibility.
"We cannot tell from day to day what may come. This is no ordinary time. No time for weighing anything except what we can do best for the country as a whole, and that responsibility rests on each and every one of us as individuals" (https://fdrlibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/found-in-the-archives-9/).
The Dems united behind Biden in 2020 after his SC win. Pete B won IA and Bernie won NH & NV. No one thought either of them could beat Trump. But they thought Biden could, and once he had that win under his belt, they united. My bet is they will do the same in 2024, when the threat of a Trump win is so much greater than it was in 2020. He hadn't waged his coup yet.
Perhaps it will be our generation's Eleanor Roosevelt - Michele Obama - who's words will shift the disagreeable Dems.
As usual, SandyG, you've got my vote on your thinking. "No ordinary time" now being scored by the "disagreeable Dems". Things seem to be changing with every passing second, but I think it's 50/50 whether Biden goes or stays. He's determined to make that decision himself. Even as the hounds circle closer each hour. I think it's actually possible he refuses to budge. Incredibly.
I'd love to see the excitement and energy of a lightening primary, as described by the Ragin' Cajun Carville. And a convention that wouldn't be just a pro-forma bore. But I agree Dems are likely to choose to work together in the same spirit of expediency and good sense they showed in 2020.
If and when Joe does cede the stage to Kamala, Dems unite, get on board and fight like hell for her. No prima donnas holding up the show because their turn will have to wait. No Hollywood holdouts griping in editorials. Misers re-open their wallets. I think all of this is absolutely possible.
Thank you, Memo! Agree all of it is absolutely possible and, as Otto von Bismarck put it, “politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”
If Biden dropped out it wouldn't be a challenger situation anymore. Doesn't mean it would work, but this is not a conventional election in any way.
Also doesn't meant it wouldn't work. This is no ordinary time.
So who is the challenger this time? Biden has the D nomination locked up, only he can alter the situation, should he decide to step down (though he already said he would allow his delegates to vote for whoever). The problem for most Dems, other than Harris, is the lack of recognition and exposure, nationwide.
They had to get through primaries with more formidable opponents. This is a great question, by the way, I'm enjoying thinking it through.
I completely agree with your assessment and that's how it should be in a normal, healthy, primary where actual voters choose their nominee. The voters picked Obama and he proved to overwhelmingly be the right choice. Don't forget, many of the same Dems pushing for Biden's ouster now were the one's propping up Hillary back then. They also pushed out Franken without giving him a trial. Pushing Biden out for anybody else may sound good on paper to the donors and Democratic "elites" but would not be a democratic move.
I'm calling a false equivalency here, Greg D, between the Franken ouster (a disgraceful move that has forever hurt the Democratic Party), and the concerned call for Biden to step down because of the declining health and coherence we can see him suffering.
It is a democratic move because many of us voted for Biden in the 2020 primary with the understanding that he would be a one-term president. Well, the term is ending, and many of us would like to see the torch passed, and our current Vice President should be the receiver. She has earned it, and she can show the world that the forces of racism and misogyny can be defeated at the highest level in this country.
The only incumbents who lost their bid for a 2nd term, in my lifetime, are Carter and Bush I. Hoover also, but I wasn't around then . . .😉
Well said David! The other day Jon Stewart complained about how France conducts two elections in a month. Britain conducts one in two months while ours starts after each election.
European elections are about courting voters, US elections are about courting donors.
Someone out there is making a LOT of money from US elections. . .