I can't tell whether Dean Philips run is good or not. People (not you) refer to Kennedy's run against Carter. I remember that, it was bitter and Kennedy couldn't stand Carter. This seems so different. Philips is giving Biden credit as a good president. He is instead running because people are saying they want a change. If he makes a good…
I can't tell whether Dean Philips run is good or not. People (not you) refer to Kennedy's run against Carter. I remember that, it was bitter and Kennedy couldn't stand Carter. This seems so different. Philips is giving Biden credit as a good president. He is instead running because people are saying they want a change. If he makes a good run, people either pick him (seems good), or pick Biden (seems good). In either case people make a choice and aren't limited to DNC preferences.
I believe the Biden people are acting in good faith, my feeling is that we shouldn't be afraid of voters weighing in.
"Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election."
That is the argument I hear. The counterargument is that history surprises, and this election is structurally way different and analogizing from the past 50 years is not appropriate. Personally when I look for a similar historical moment I go to the 1850s as much as the 1970s. We are off the normal playbook.
I can't tell whether Dean Philips run is good or not. People (not you) refer to Kennedy's run against Carter. I remember that, it was bitter and Kennedy couldn't stand Carter. This seems so different. Philips is giving Biden credit as a good president. He is instead running because people are saying they want a change. If he makes a good run, people either pick him (seems good), or pick Biden (seems good). In either case people make a choice and aren't limited to DNC preferences.
I believe the Biden people are acting in good faith, my feeling is that we shouldn't be afraid of voters weighing in.
"Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election."
That is the argument I hear. The counterargument is that history surprises, and this election is structurally way different and analogizing from the past 50 years is not appropriate. Personally when I look for a similar historical moment I go to the 1850s as much as the 1970s. We are off the normal playbook.