These approval numbers from Morning Consult are historically terrible and show Biden above water in roughly the same patch of territory Carter and Dukakis managed to win in 80’ and 88’ respectively. I suspect Biden could clawback support by Election Day 24’ in some of these places, but not enough to win an electoral college majority unless he really starts shaking things up.
My fear now is you get a smarter Trump like DeSantis to pick up the MAGA mantle and fuse it to a more mainstream Republican alternative to Biden. If the race becomes a referendum on four more years of Biden rather than another Trump term, Biden is in real trouble. With Harris underwater even more, there is really no alternative standard bearer we could muster in time for 2024.
The “liberal” mainstream media have accomplished their aim.
It isn’t clear to me that ANY Democrat can be inaugurated in 2025, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 election. Merrick Garland, the DoJ, and Congress have failed to take any effective steps to put down the insurrection.
One way to avoid the appearance of the destruction of representative democracy is to manipulate public opinion so that the fascist authoritarian white supremacists of America appear to win the 2024 election. Actual vote counts won’t matter, and enough states will manipulate them that even if they are reported they will change wildly and will ultimately be “adjusted” to show an electoral college win for the Republican nominee (whomever that is).
The headlines and endlessly repetitive stories will be about “populism” and “backlash”. Any embarrassing facts that emerge from the Jan 6 committee or the multiple “investigations” allegedly underway will be buried alongside the Mueller report. There will be lots of tut-tutting and fuming from Democrats — and no more substance than there’s been since 2016.
The facts are already known. Our political system has failed to address those facts. Representative democracy in America is already dead. We knew that the insurrectionists were simultaneously ignoring and attacking the rule of law and we did NOTHING substantive about that.
This is a good time for state officials to begin planning for how to protect Massachusetts residents from federal authorities seeking to identify, prosecute, and punish anybody who opposes the imposition of their world view.
Completely agree with this. I think Macron also showed that you can move right on culture and left on economics at the same time. Something Biden needs to do. Sissy Soulja the wokesters and start fighting for unions, start fighting big tech, and deliver some of the climate and paid leave agenda voters actually like.
Tim Ryan and John Fetterman are doing a great job of this. Tougher on China and the border than Biden, but also tougher on fighting for labor, for fair trade, and for better healthcare and paid leave for working families. They may have a shot against a charlatan like Oz or an empty suit like Vance.
I don’t see how there is any evidence that the mainstream media downplayed January 6. If anything, they were in rare form rejecting the Big Lie and condemning what happened as an insurrection. What mainstream outlets have both sided either of these claims? They have laid into McCarthy this week for his doublespeak on the issue.
I think the bigger problem is there really is no longer a “mainstream” or a “media”. Most voters under 30 get most of their info uncritically from various sources on the internet and not tv news or newspapers and most Republican voters watch Fox or other right wing outlets that are not even reporting on these issues anymore. But the average swing voter is 50, non college educated, and watches the evening news. I think that coverage still matters and it’s something Biden focused well on before the Afghan withdrawal and has sort of retreated from effective public questioning since then.
I also think the mainstream media was fairly critical of Trump throughout his presidency in a manner that was ultimately counter productive. Cheerleading Mueller, amplifying discredited conspiracy theories like the Steele Dossier, and making Resistance heroes out of hacks like James Comey and Avenatti.
Taibbi and Greenwald have unfortunately moved into weird ideological spaces on Putin and liberalism, but they were fundamentally correct about the media uncritically vetting Russiagate sources. Surely a too little too late overcorrection for not taking the threat of Trump seriously until it was too late and drawing false equivalencies between his manifest corruption and lack of fitness for such a high office and Hillary’s dumb emails.
The origin story was wonky, but I would not call the Steele Dossier a conspiracy. I think cheerleading Mueller was fine to the extent it happened. I’m still very frustrated that his report was basically stuck in a drawer and was never the basis for impeachment.
The Mueller report should have been — and could still be — the basis for a raft of criminal indictments.
MORE criminal indictments, just to be clear. As I recall there were several indictments and successful prosecutions pursuant to his work.
Indeed there were some criminal indictments and prosecutions.
All pardoned by Mr. Trump or quashed by Mr. Barr.
If representative democracy is already dead than Biden would not have won, the 2018 midterms would not have happened, and Jan 6 would have been successful. I am with you that the next election is far more dangerous and we are not back to normal, but I totally disagree with the idea that what we do with our votes or our civic engagement does not matter. My in laws resisted an American backed authoritarian president and we are nowhere near what they had to deal with and their activist friends in Duterte’s Philippines still have to deal with. We are definitely inching closer and closer to it, but Maria Ressa can give speeches here she is silenced from giving in her homeland. My bigger worry is we go the direction of Orban where authoritarian illiberal “democracy” is what a majority actually wants.
I agree that representative democracy saved us in 2018 and 2020.
As we learn more about Jan 6, it becomes increasingly clear how deeply the cancer had and has spread. Today’s reporting is that Mike Pence refused to enter the armored limousine provided by the Secret Service because he feared for his life. That was because the head of Mr. Trump’s secret service detail — and therefore the immediate superior to the agents assigned to Mr. Pence — was a key leader in the insurrection.
Is there ANY indication that that Secret Service agent will be disciplined in any way?
In the two years since the 2020 election, the insurrectionists have aggressively acted to sever the fragile threads that stopped their attempted coup after the 2020 election.
The rest of our elected officials have done nothing.
I suggest that history will show that representative democracy died between January 6, 2021 and November of 2022 because the elected government did not put down the insurrection.
It appears to me that we are hurtling towards fascism, rather than ‘inching closer and closer to it”.
Our mainstream media is, as always, covering their bets on all sides.
MSNBC breathlessly reports every snort of disdain by Adam Schiff — and is virtually silent about how the Insurrectionists:
Merrick Garland and the DoJ behave as if they fear actually DOING anything.
Do you seriously believe that the NSA doesn’t already have recordings, transcripts, and complete metadata about EVERY electronic communication to or from ANY sitting president and his or her staff? This endless stalling about burner phones, executive privilege, and the rest is distracting nonsense.
The facts of what happened have been known since they happened. Much of it was broadcast live as it happened. ALL of it is already in the hands of the NSA, CIA, FBI, and similar agencies.
The newsworthy material is why these facts are being suppressed.
If you or I circulated material on the web depicting violent attacks on a sitting president and sitting Speaker of the House, how long do you think it would take for law enforcement agents to haul us away for “detainment” while authorities gather evidence to prosecute us?
We needed ACTION in the immediate aftermath of January 6, and we got meaningless twaddle.
I guess we can agree on that. Not sure what source for the Pence info, or NSA info, but I agree Garland is going to slow and risks being Muellar 2.0 and I think the bigger danger is the right is openly embracing illiberal democracy.
Bill Maher has a great segment on this danger
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkjjGZ92NQ
My worry is the left would rather stay home since it did not get everything it wanted under Biden. The risk of Trump coming back or someone even worse (because they are more savvy and devious) is very real. I think Democrats are hubristically assuming the bare minimal opposition to Trump will keep them in power and keep the left in line, and I really think it’s misguided and a mistake. People need something to vote for and a midterm and Biden’s re-election will be referenda on his leadership and not Donald Trump’s. So he has to make a much stronger case to the American people than he has.
Most recently, Chris Hayes on MSNBC on 25-Apr-2022 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2wL0vIfGg). Mr. Hayes cites a WaPo book excerpt (“I Alone Can Fix It” by Philip Rucker and Carol Loennig)
Chris Hayes quotes Jamie Raskin as saying that Mr. Pence feared that Trump loyalists on Mr. Pence’s security detail sought to remove him from the scene so that the coup could succeed.
Mr. Hayes implies that Mr. Pence feared for his life.
I think America was NOT ready for a black president.
Mostly unspoken in all this discussion is the most glaringly obvious feature of today’s GOP: racism and white supremacy.
America fears blacks. The GOP fears blacks. Too many Democrats fear blacks. Joe Biden was nearly eliminated in the primary, for crying out loud, because our “progressive” Democratic party coincidentally structured the primary schedule so that the overwhelming favorite of black voters was nearly eliminated before there was a primary in ANY state with a significant number of black voters.
The cancer of white privilege and white supremacy has metastasized and spread throughout our political system.
I don’t think this is about right and left, I think it’s about white and non-white.
I’d agree that this is what it is about.. according to the right, this is their template.
I think it’s a mistake to use this same template. We ought not let them define us as non-white, or favoring non-whites in our policies.
We can stand for bigger things. We can be the party that is unified in its opposition to Putin. We can be the party that is firmly for the American working family, not Wall Street. Sure, Putin is a white guy and Wall Street is dominated by white guys, but we do not have to make this a white / non-white issue.
We can raise the flags on our front lawns too as proud Americans in support of Ukraine.
I’m not suggesting that we use the same template.
I fear that “standing for bigger things” amounts to the same thing as the now-infamous “When they go low, we go high” quote from Michelle Obama. It sounds great and resonates with those who already agree with us.
It is no match for guns, physical violence, nooses, and flagrantly corrupt political machinations.
Raising a flag on our front lawn doesn’t do squat to stop the Georgia legislature from making it impossible for blacks to vote or for those votes to count. It won’t stop federal troops from enforcing Fascist dictates in Boston, Somerville, Lawrence, Lowell, Fall River, Springfield, and our other cities.
I think that what is needed is hard-nosed physical force — National Guard troops enforcing federal law when states refuse to do the same. The leaders of the insurrection need to be “detained”. It was easy to do that when the “terrorist” suspects were Muslims in 2001.
It’s a completely different story when we’re talking about good old boys like Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Meadows or mafia thugs (or stooges) like Donald Trump.
Our federal government found a way to do this in 1965. I see no evidence that we are willing to do it now — at least so long as Democrats hold the White House and congress.
I think we’ll see armed military units marching through the streets of Boston to enforce the whims of the fascists in 2025 if we don’t put down this insurrection right now.
I agree, Tom. And I see your point with regard to “bigger things’ and the flag – but...we need a symbol, a hook, something to rally behind. It’s not going to be abortion rights, or voting rights, or climate change, or something that the Right can twist and attack. Perhaps Mr. Biden can parlay his success with Ukraine, assuming it continues to go well and results in Zelensky still in Kiev as leader.
Mr. Trump offered Zelensky something in exchange for “a political favor” – Mr. Biden gave Zelensky weapons to protect democracy from its communist attackers. I dunno, maybe there’s something in that we can use.
Are you seriously advocating unconstitutional and illegal law enforcement methods!?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WILL YOU KNOCK IT OFF WITH YOUR DYSTOPIAN FANTASIES!!!!?
Will YOU knock it off with your abject denial?
Are you familiar with the Op-Ed just published by Michael Luttig
(https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to-steal-the-2024-election-luttig/index.html)?
From that piece (emphasis mine):
While you attack me for “DYSTOPIAN FANTASIES”, right-wing Fascist Authoritarians are advancing their plan to take over the federal government.
Please cite any other moment in American history where we faced a comparable threat.
Did you miss the calls for the prior administration to impose martial law AFTER the January 6 attack?
What do you think they had in mind?
Did you pay attention to what happened in Lafayette Square when Mr. Trump wanted a photo-op? Please cite even ONE official who was disciplined for that gross and illegal abuse of federal power.
“Dystopian fantasy” indeed. It has happened before in other nations when thugs like this take power. Why do you think it won’t happen here?
There were those in Berlin who were convinced that the threats to erect the Berlin Wall and seal off East Berlin were a “dystopian fantasy”.
“Dystopian fantasy” — you’ll keep saying that until you’re hauled away.
I’ve never argued that some aren’t trying, just that they won’t succeed. As more than 200 years of history, albeit some of it rough at times, has done a good job of proving, you should not bet against the innate resiliency of the United States of America, STILL in my view the last best hope on earth. We have bounced back from elections of 1800, 1824, 1860 (yes, eventually), 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016, and 2020. We survived a sack of DC in 1814, a Civil War, domestic strife and polarization in the 1960s/1970s and Antebellum. We continued to hold regular elections during the Civil War, World Wars, and economic collapses. Therefore I am absolutely confident that with regards to current political strife there may end up being some precedent in one or more of the incidents I just citied, but we SHALL overcome. What I am trying to figure out and haven’t yet is what constitutional reforms are needed to restore the Framers’ original idea of tension among the branches that is not overriden by party loyalty. There are definitely things we can and should do differently.
Blanket primaries paired with ranked choice voting my friend. It’s why Murkowski was able to vote for impeaching trump and will probably keep her seat. This is the easiest way to elect leaders who will put country over party every time and maybe break up the two party doom loop as Lee Drutman calls it.
I still want the parties to primary separately so both can be represented in the general, but I like RCV within each primary and for the general. I sometimes wonder whether we should make voting obligatory so the parties aren’t responsible for turning out the base. Voters bear some responsibility too. Moderates need to participate in primaries.
We did elect Obama twice with comfortable popular and electoral majorities. There’s a lot that goes into primary scheduling and the national party is not the only stakeholder. Biden stayed in precisely because he knew what his chances in SC were. If you are suggesting that the DNC was deliberately trying to suppress the choice of black voters I will disagree in the strongest possible terms.
Here we go again. It DOESN’T MATTER whether it was “deliberate” or not.
It happened. It happened because with “[all] that goes into primary scheduling” and all those “stakeholders”, the national party disenfranchised a MAJOR voting group — and THE voting group that won the White House the last three times a Democratic nominee has been elected.
You said a little while ago that you now admit that systemic racism exists. The Democratic primary election schedule in 2020 is a clear and well-documented example of it.
The idea that modern Democratic party supports a racist system is laughable. Primaries are often done by states. To get real change you need the state governments and both national committees to agree.
This comment is self-contradictory.
New Hampshire and Iowa are lily-white. The “modern Democratic Party” in each state has shown itself to be utterly oblivious to real and valid concerns of black voters.
Your last sentence directly contradicts your first.
I’m just talking about the practicality of adjusting the calendar. I don’t completely buy your premise, by the way. SC was moved to the first month in the 90s precisely to address these concerns. They do after all still vote before all but a couple of states. Politically, the biggest question should be what sequence (if it matters at all which I’m not sure it does) gives our party the best chance to nominate someone who can win the general election. I submit that putting a couple of non-base states up front will inform that question. Then again, 2020 showed their influence on the outcome of the nomination is not guaranteed anyway.
In an electorate where blacks are among the largest demographic group, I suggest that any sequence that preserves the current dominance of whites is being driven by something other than politics, whether or not that driver is admitted.
This is a case study of white privilege in action. It is the same well-documented mechanism that keeps blacks out of the ranks of the wealthy and powerful. No policy says “blacks need not apply”. Instead, choices are made using euphemisms and stereotypes.
Do you have an example of when it is reasonable to assume in years our nominee lost, that a different sequence would have produced a different nominee and said nominee was more likely to win? Do you have an example of a year when our nominee was not supported by African Americans since our current system was in place? Keep in mind that Obama gained credibility by winning very white Iowa. If not, then if it ain’t broke…
You need look no further than Hillary Clinton and the 2016 primary. Bernie Sanders won the NH primary. That itself is clear evidence that NH is not representative of the national electorate
It isn’t just producing a different nominee, the impact of the primary on the nominee and campaign must also be considered.
The primary season not only selects a nominee, it also tends to shape the narrative and issues of the campaign that follows.
That’s also an argument for the point that who goes first does not have outsized influence anyway, so maybe not that unfair after all. I still don’t see an example where a different sequence in 2016 would have produced a different primary or general result.
I think that the Clinton campaign was badly damaged by the NH primary. I think that the campaign wasted resources competing with Bernie Sanders and created hostility and disapproval — even among Democrats — that proved fatal in the end.
The outcome of the 2016 general election was determined in large part by black voters who did not turn out to support Ms. Clinton in the major urban centers of MI, WI, and PA.
I think that lack of turnout can be directly traced, at least to some extent, by the consequences of the initial strength of Bernie Sanders (and other white candidates) in the early primaries.
It didn’t help that the national “liberal” media — was overwhelmingly and unfairly hostile to Ms. Clinton. Among the worst offenders were the New York Times and CNN.
The NYTimes, in particular, exemplified white privilege in its reporting and editorial coverage at the time. CNN had a similar history, which CNN itself took explicit steps to remedy in the aftermath of the 2016 election.
I support the push to elevate diverse blue states like NJ or NV above lily white states like IA and NH. IA should be barred unless it adopts a ranked choice primary instead of a caucus. That last caucus was a travesty that shows what’s left of the IA Democratic Party is not ready for prime time. Having one in OH could give you the rust belt and corn belt factor while also including black voters and suburban voters. Or MI. I would do regional primaries and rotate them on a fixed cycle.
NV is already early and the others are too big to go first. I wouldn’t insist on ranked choice just for IA if other states aren’t but keep in mind since delegates are awarded proportionally we aren’t looking for a single winner anyway. I’m less attached to IA than NH in terms of timing, but there are advantages to the caucus method too.
Once Clinton was the nominee what does it matter how strong Sanders was at first?
Here are at least some reasons why it matters:
Are black voters not motivated to vote in issues of higher wages, lower working class taxes, universal healthcare, and safe communities?
I didn’t say that. Presumably other factors are more important in motivating black voters to turn out.
What might these other factors be that are more important to black voters? Clearly I am not a black man, but given the choice of a black woman on the USSC or a good paying job that will help me support my family, I’m going for the latter. Of course it’s not an either/or decision and I’d like both, but one is a bird in the hand and the other is not. And yes, the implication is that the black woman on the bench will result in benefits that will trickle down me…but again, I’m thirsty today.
I don’t know, and I don’t want to speculate. Surely the best way to answer that question is to ask it of black voters.
That dialogue can’t happen in New Hampshire or Iowa.
Yes which is why they voted for Biden. They didn’t want radical change or pie in the sky stuff that would lose the election to Trump. They wanted a known winner.
I’ll also add that it was black voters who finally put the breaks on Bernie who was about to run away with the thing, right after defending Fidel Castro on prime time I might add. I think having black voters weigh in earlier would help force candidates to appeal to a more moderate demographic. If you cannot excite black voters, you cannot win the general election.
Also on most issues contrary to popular belief they align with the median white voter. Slightly right of center on issues like policing, crime, gender, and immigration and slightly left of center on economics, unions, etc. Just like a majority of Latinos and non college white voters. This is the sweet spot, not Castro, Beto, Bernie, and Warren racing to the far left of the field on open borders, free college, and defunding the police to appeal to IA college professors and NH college kids.
I’m fine with NH going first for sentimental reasons, but it should be followed next day by MI, NJ, and NV. IA caucuses should be permanently cancelled.
What have the IA caucuses done to you? You seem to have that stuck in your craw.
The IA caucuses embarrassed every Democrat in 2020.
It is an absurd anachronism that has long outlived whatever purpose it might once have had.
I know they were procedurally wonky in 2020. I blame trying to use new-fangled technology just because you can. My preference is closed primaries, but town meeting style democracy has its place too. I’m not a fan of some of the issues IA makes the candidates emphasize nor am I as emotionally attached to IA as I am NH, but reforming that is pretty low on my list of priorities.
I think every institution needs to adapt and reform in order to stay viable in our atomized society where the disaffiliated and disaffected nones are the emerging majority. Whether it’s rejecting organized religion, organized parties, bowling leagues, masons and elks, and the like. We are a civically disconnected culture. Part of rebuilding that will involve making the institutions easier to join and participate in and being flexible about how we do business.
I’ll add Obama did better with white working class voters than either Hillary or Biden. He won in more rural areas too. Part of that is he was a better communicator of the working class values of the party, part of it is we had more effective unions at the time, and part of it is he ran as a fair trader against an outsourcer.
Joe will be 80 years old this November, 82 at the end of his term in office….86 at the end of his second term, should he run and win.
Kamala Harris’s 15 minutes are up. Sorry, but she is not a viable option.
My question is: Do Biden’s poll numbers matter one way or another?
Nancy Pelosi is 82. Diane Feinstein is 88.
Yes, Trump is the “youngster” in the room at 75.
Dems need to look ‘outside the box”.
Lots can turn around by 2024. It has plenty of times in the past.
We will see. I suspect another wipeout at the House level (and Pelosi should finally cede the gavel to somebody younger) but have faith smart Senate candidates on our side and the clown car primaries on their side could help us maintain our majority. Kelly and Warnock are polling better than Biden for instance.
I think Pelosi has basically said she’s done, but I’m not interested in handing off to someone younger for it’s own sake.
“You or I” HAVE been subject to law enforcement. They are the little fish that DOJ has already been going after. Every prosecutor I have heard comment on this seems to understand that where we currently are on the investigation/prosecution timeline is reasonable.
I agree that we’re on a “reasonable” timeline. That’s the problem.
We’re on a timeline that reaches a resolution FAR too late to address the problem.
We are being attacked, and we are doing nothing.
So you agree that you and I are subject to a VERY different rule of law than the leaders of the Insurrection.
That’s my point.
I’m saying the higher up the food chain you go the more important it is to get an airtight case. That’s true for any series of prosecutions.
Your comment is an example of Ms. Palin’s famous “lipstick on a pig” remark.
You are explaining why the rich and powerful are untouchable.
They should not be.
So what do you propose? You often need what you get from the lower rungs to successfully go after the higher.
Perhaps some no-knock warrants executed in the wee hours of the morning might send a message.
Authorities are not shy about “detaining” powerless individuals deemed threatening.
Virginia Thomas and Mark Meadows should be in serious trouble RIGHT NOW. Poor blacks have already been prosecuted for “voter fraud” because they, for example, didn’t know they had been purged from the voter roles. Mark Meadows and his wife explicitly violated North Carolina law by registering and voting in the 2020 election using a property they had never even SEEN!
Representative Paul Gosar should have been expelled from the House and should face charges for his posting of obvious threats against Mr. Biden and AOC.
Mr. Cawthorne should be expelled from congress and prosecuted for his repeated weapons violations including at the Capitol itself.
The list goes on and on.
Do you want vengeance or justice? “But they did it too” sounds like a first grade complaint. You correct injustices by making them just, not by perpetrating the same injustices against others just for balance. I wish Gosar and Cawthorne (maybe others) should be expelled, but that requires 2/3 which isn’t going to happen. I’m not sure how prosecutable Thomas and Meadows are for batting around ideas, nor if their communications rise to the level of conspiracy. Neither of us is a lawyer so I’m not sure I’m comfortable second-guessing those who are.
My first sentence was ironic in order to emphasize the disparity.
I’m familiar with the mechanics of how Mr. Gosar and Mr. Cawthorne avoided expulsion — that is my point. Citing the excuses for why the wealthy and powerful remain untouchable does not make it any less outrageous.
Your characterization of Ms. Thomas’s communications as “batting around ideas” is as disconnected from reality as the claim that the Jan 6 attackers were “just tourists” or that their actions were “legitimate expressions of political speech”.
No. Virginia Thomas was a KEY organizer, leader, and cheerleader for the insurrection. If what she did was “batting around ideas”, then it is not possible for anyone to ever be prosecuted for conspiring to overthrow the government.
One more time — if you or I did that, we would be in jail. For that matter, the only reason that Mark Meadows listened to her was that she is married to Clarence Thomas.
I am VERY comfortable asserting that the same rule of law should apply to the wealthy and powerful that applies to the rest of us.
Virginia Thomas belongs in jail. Mark Meadows belongs in jail. Donald Trump belongs in jail.
Donald Trump should not only be in jail, he should be thanking his lucky stars that he is not facing a firing squad — because that is what happens to most traitors who sell out their government and do the bidding of a hostile foreign leader.
I agree Trump should be in jail (though he is still afforded due process), but your last paragraph sounds way too much like Trump himself for my comfort.
Maybe I need to be reminded exactly what Thomas’s messages said because what I recall was a lot of, what if we did this, what if you try this, maybe the President should do this. I’m pretty sure she holds no position in which she could actually make any of that happen. If I’m right I don’t like it any more than you do, but I’m still not seeing the criminality.
You need to become more familiar with the material released by the Jan 6 committee about Ms. Thomas, together with the well-sourced reporting of the New York Times and Washington Post about the same material.
Just as one example, Sidney Powell — the now-infamous fraud — was added to the “Stop the Steal” campaign at the explicit demand of Ms. Thomas.
This was MUCH more than what you suggest.
Which I guess makes Biden a great President Emeritus, though he obviously won’t have as long to enjoy that status as Carter has been blessed with.
My analogy was not to rag on Carter or Biden from a historical or moral standpoint. I admire both men a lot and think historians will reevaluate Biden for making tough decisions like Afghanistan the same way they already are for Carter. It is just trying to be reality based that Biden is in pretty bad shape politically and could drag the party down with him without a major course correction. The fact that I haven’t seen one is starting to worry me.
And Lord help us if we have another primary in 24’. Either against Biden or an open race. All the electable candidates are anathema to the base and all the base candidates are anathema to swing voters.
I can see Buttigieg straddling that fence. Ordinarily I would say VP Harris too, but her numbers are also in the tank for reasons passing understanding. I’m not sure she’d try again, but if Warren were the nominee I think she’d do surprisingly well among certain swing voters and those we don’t usually consider ours.
Elizabeth Warren has already said she’s not running for President in 2024.
We have no obvious nominees.
I think Warren doing well is a fantasy. Buttigieg is a little green and does not have the base of black voters needed to win a primary. My favorite two choices would have trouble winning a primary.
Andy Beshear is a popular red state Democratic Governor with strong black support and reminds me of a young Bill Clinton. He’s not as charismatic as the big dog, but it’s a similar background. He’s arguably more progressive than Baker on both fiscal and social issues too. If he gets re-elected in 23 by a wide enough margin, he could be a good choice.
Amy Klobuchar has won in a purple state twice and had higher margins than either of the last two nominees in that state. She gets the rural Midwest. She will have trouble with black and millennial voters over her handling of Derek Chauvin as a DA. She could win a general election.
I brought up Warren because when she ran last time she took a couple of detours from the early states to campaign in WV and the South and was well-received.
Also I’ll add Jared Polis is another candidate who has strong progressive bona fides and could appeal to swing voters. More experienced than Buttigieg having won a statewide race in a purple state and serving around ten years in the house.