This is case is one I personally disagree with, but I do think the best argument against a second term was recently laid out in the Atlantic by Mark Leibovitch. Essentially that Biden is still with it now but might not be with it for a full second term or a much more physically grueling in person campaign now that the pandemic is subsiding.
My biggest argument against running a new candidate is the fratricidal nature of our recent primaries, particularly the 2016 contest, and without a unifying figure like Biden to rally around, we will see moderates and progressives duke it out for total control over the party. A Harris coronation seems like a similar mistake, since she has not risen to the high expectations we all had for her when she was picked for VP.
My personal favorites Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar are probably too moderate for the base and do not command the same kind of loyalty form black voters that Biden once did (and no longer does). Perhaps Booker can hold the black, moderate, and progressive wings together. Otherwise I see a dearth of nationally viable leaders able to pick up the torch, meanwhile the GOP has a cast of characters capable of moving past Trump and generationally contrasting with Biden if given the chance. DeSantis, Cotton, Haley, Scott, and Sasse are all interesting and potentially viable against a post-midterm Biden. None of them would be good news for the country.
You do have a knack for being down about the party. I’m not nearly ready to cross the re-nomination bridge.
This is supposed to be a reality based blog! We are going to get our clocks cleaned in the midterms barring a miracle and it is likely that a GOP Congress will investigate Hunter Biden to death and drive Bidens numbers even further into a ditch than they already are. The last Democratic incumbent to be polling at 38% this time in his presidency was Jimmy Carter. There is no answer or plan for inflation, no answer or plan for economic malaise, no long term answer or plan for Ukraine, no paid leave, no debt relief, and no climate policy. There is nothing to bring the base out on the last 3 and nothing to assuage moderates and independents on the first 3.
I get that the alternative is far worse and Biden cannot control everything with the slim majorities he has, but it surely seems as if the Democrats once again got in their own way and squandered a rare opportunity to reset the country on a better trajectory. We are likely looking at a one term president and another six years of far right rule unless the party drastically changes course.
Best estimates I’ve read with regard to supply chain issues, Covid, inflation, and the rest is that it will take three years to settle out. That puts Trump in the White House in 2024. Abortion and the Courts are not enough to “turn out the base” when gas is $5 a gallon and grocery bills are up. Now mortgage rages and monthly car payments are going up too.
I know two things:
Democrats would be wise to tell the American people that they too know that changes need to be made and preempt with a change in power announcement for 2024 – where President Biden formally announces he will not seek re-election.
At least you agree that there is no logical connection between your several points.
If we stipulate your two points, then your suggested conclusion makes no sense — any voter foolish enough to blame Joe Biden and the Democrats for whatever is happening will not be swayed by a different Democratic nominee.
I assume you are old enough to remember the chaos that resulted from LBJ’s announcement that he would not seek re-election in 1968 (including the assassinations of RFK and MLK).
Who do you think would win the Democratic nomination in this scenario? Do you think those voters who subscribe to your second point will vote for that person?
I am getting cautiously optimistic DOJ investigates Trump and keeps him off the GOP 2024 candidate list. I am less optimistic Biden can beat back a younger 24’ contender who is not Donald Trump.
It won’t be just Mr. Trump.
My understanding is that all of the many scenarios that result in Mr. Trump being prosecuted also target the leadership of the GOP and the GOP fund-raising apparatus itself.
The GOP has been fraudulently raising enormous amounts of money — across state lines — by making claims they know are false. That’s a serious federal offense.
Many corrupt evangelical organizations have been prosecuted for exactly the same crimes — there is no valid reason to not prosecute the GOP.
How can you make that claim? Voters are fickle. Sure, those of us on BMG are well informed, rational, but from what I see “out there”. the average voter knows as much about economics, government, and history as I know about NASCAR, American Idol, and the Kardashian – which is to say, enough to hold a one minute conversation.
“Logical connections”? I recall when Clinton ran for his first term and his campaign kept telling the American people that the economy was in bad shape. Yes, it had been but it was already on the mend and improving in the months leading up to election day. But Clinton and the Democrats employed lies and emotion, not facts and logic to win the election.
I’m afraid you are depending far too much on logic, truth, and rational thought to sway the American voters.
We already see the results of relying on superstition, lies, and scapegoats as we watch the GOP.
Why do you think that further suppressing logic, truth, and rational thought will do anything constructive?
With all your commentary here about how much you “support” the working class, how do you square that commentary with your observation that those voters are not swayed by “logic, truth, and rational thought”?
There is an important additional aspect — the rule of law.
If the American electorate cannot be persuaded to preserve representative democracy by logic, truth, rational thought, and the rule of law then representative democracy is dead.
The Clinton folks may have been better than some at messaging, but lies – really? I doubt voters who were still feeling the pinch when they went to the polls in 1992 would characterize it that way.
Of course they weren’t lies.
If you want lies from that era, then examine the utterances and record of George H. W. Bush. If that’s not convincing, then do the some for Bob Dole in 1996.
Anybody who thinks the economy was in good shape or improving from the Reagan/Bush era was either not paying attention, listening to Rush Limbaugh, or both.
In fact, the recession that Bush presided over was from 1990-1991 and the USA began climbing out of the recession in 1992. There is no evidence that the economy was in decline, but the James Carville embarked on a political campaign for Bill Clinton that told the American people that the economy was in a tailspin resulting in Bush’s approval rating to fall from 90% to below 40%. The numbers do not lie, no matter what radio station one is listening to.
Rush Limbaugh was not a “radio station”. He was among the first of the Fox-style right-wing fascists who knowingly and intentionally brainwashed his listeners to ignore reality.
He was also among the first of the rabid anti-Clinton despots who infected more than one generation with their despicable lies about two of our most effective political leaders in a generation. It is clear to anyone willing to see that the effectiveness of Bill and Hillary Clinton was precisely the motivation for the baseless and false attacks.
The economic collapse of 1990-1991 — especially in the real and banking industry — was the direct and predicted consequence of the absurd GOP tax giveaways to the very wealthy.
Bill Clinton and the American electorate were exactly correct in blaming the resulting suffering on George H. W. Bush.
George H. W. Bush was correctly held accountable for his many lies, distortions, and outright crimes (his leadership of the Iran-Contra debacle was never appropriately punished).
I’m astonished that you’re still apparently defending him here, thirty years later.
Yup….all true. The economic collapse was from 1990-1991 The economy was improving in 1992 under the leadership of the current administration, despite the words of the Clinton campaign that denied the truth, that things were indeed improving. It’s called math. I’m not defending Bush or Limbaugh or Carville or Clinton. I am simply stating the facts.
It’s also true today that we are in an economic crisis that was unavoidable and those most familiar with these matters agree that it will take two to three years for changes to work their way through the system. However, the “James Carvilles” on the right will tell the public that it’s all the fault of the Biden Administration and that a change is needed. Same game, different players, same result. I’m astonished that you think that somehow there will be a different result this time.
I invite your attention to multiple sources summarized for your convenience at wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_United_States)
Here is the relevant text (emphasis mine):
Let’s see the instant replay on those:
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Democrats — led by James Carville — CORRECTLY hammered on these points. Each was true, and each was the DIRECT and PREDICTED consequence of the “voodoo economics” of the Reagan/Bush administration.
George H. W. Bush destroyed the job market. He destroyed the real estate market, and in so doing wiped out the life savings of nearly every American homeowner. He and his predecessor created the Savings & Loan crisis that nearly destroyed the financial industry.
The combination of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush was unmatched in its destruction of the US economy until George W. Bush outdid his father in causing the Great Recession of 2008.
For anyone who actually cares about economic facts, the GOP has been toxic to the US economy since 1980. THAT is the “math” that your commentary attempts to deny.
Meanwhile, I call your attention to the last highlight:
Strong growth resumed and lasted through the year 2000. Although relatively mild, the early 1990s recession was the only interruption to economic expansion during the 1990s.
The election of Bill Clinton led to strong and uninterrupted economic growth during all eight years of his administration. That economic growth happened while the annual federal deficit was reduced each year.
Speaking of the federal deficit, here are the highlights during those years :
1980: $ 81B — 2.6% of GDP
1988: $155B — 3.0%
1992: $290B — 4.5%
2000: ($236B) — (2.3%)
A major claim of candidate Ronald Reagan was the lie that Jimmy Carter had “blown up” the deficit (at $81B).
After eight years of “Reaganomics”, the deficit had nearly doubled to $155B. After four more years of the George H. W. Bush administration, the deficit had climbed to a whopping $290B — more than THREE TIMES the Jimmy Carter deficit.
Not only did the economy IMMEDIATELY turn around under Bill Clinton, but the annual deficit declined each year of his administration.
You’re not repeating “math”, you’re repeating right-wing Rush Limbaugh lies.
The facts are that Bill Clinton provided eight years of a growing and vibrant national economy with constantly decreasing annual federal deficit.
Your attack on both Bill Clinton and James Carville is both incorrect and irrelevant.
James Carville was a good-guy who told the truth in 1992 just as he continues to tell the truth today. Today’s GOP cannot allow anyone to tell the truth on behalf of today’s GOP because the truth about today’s GOP is so devastating.
It is utterly ridiculous to attempt to conflate the truths of the successful 1992 Democratic presidential campaign with the lies of the upcoming 2024 GOP counterpart.
If the recession is on record on being in effect from 1990-1991, not 1990-1992. Your own post refers to The economic collapse of 1990-1991 I have no need to read the long post above, since your earlier post admits the “economic collapse” was over by 1992, when the Clinton campaign told us it was not.
Your defense of the Clintons is no different than those who continue to defend Trump. even in the face of facts.
The FACT remains that in 1992 most Americans faced a horrific job market with high and climbing unemployment. The value of their homes had been destroyed.
Your refusal to even read material that challenges your opinion strengthens the perception that you’re concern-trolling.
My defense of the Clintons is based on facts — facts you refuse to even READ.
This isn’t a discussion. If you won’t even read commentary that challenges your biases, then further exchanges are pointless.
What happens with this scenario if:
I hope that it will be ILLEGAL to contribute to the GOP (as currently constituted) by 2024 because of its role in fraud and sedition.
2024 is a long time in the political future and I think we can and should be a bit of a Dem-cheerleading blog too! I believe Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were all declared politically dead on account of low ratings and midterm results too, but went on to successful re-election. Just don’t prejudge this far out is all I’m asking, especially when Republicans have so many opportunities, at least some of which they will likely take, to overplay their hand.
I think locally we are in great shape. I like our DC delegation, I think we’ve seen more progressive activity in the state legislature in the last two years than we saw in the last eight. I think our 22’ crop of statewide candidates is much better than our 18’ and 14’ crop.
Healey or Chang Diaz would be good governors and should be able to beat Diehl. I like our AG, LG, and Auditor candidates. Fair Share can hopefully pass and more and more communities are adopting ranked choice voting at the local level. Wu has made some missteps, but is still very popular.
My biggest concern for Healey or Chang-Diaz is if they walk into a recession like Deval Patrick did and are stymied from implementing their progressive agenda. I am less worried the Speaker or Senate President will be veto points if our broader economic climate is can be one that is bullish on spending.
Also we did successfully pass a ROE Act and can be insulated from the fallout of the Dobbs decision (which may in fact go the other way once the case is finally worked out).
I could see a graceful and privately negotiated transition from Kamala Harris to Cory Booker as VP.
I did not join in the high expectations of Kamala Harris. She is proving to be pretty much what I anticipated.
Assuming (as I do) that Joe Biden will be the 2024 nominee, the VP on that ticket is the presumptive nominee for 2028. I think Cory Booker is a much better choice than Kamala Harris.
I prefer a scenario where a Biden/Booker ticket is nominated in 2024 and easily wins the 2024 general election.
Unlike Mr. Trump, I’m confident that if something awful happens to Mr. Biden, there will be an immediate and graceful transfer of power to Mr. Booker under the 25th Amendment.
I know of no other scenarios that are nearly as attractive to me.
There’s a rumor Susan Rice has more influence on Biden than Harris does and she might be Chief of Staff after a midterm shakeup. She would also be another good choice to hand it off too, but I agree I liked a Biden-Booker ticket at the time before Biden boxed himself into picking a woman and I like it in the future.
So far as I can see, Cory Booker is the brightest star in the Democratic presidential sky for 2024, 2028, or if needed between those.
He was fantastic at the KBJ hearings. I thought he got to be a better debater by the end of the primary cycle. His baby bonds are a good policy silver bullet for a lot of the income inequality in this country, including the racial wealth gap, and it solves it in a universalist way that does not put different groups against one another. So I’d be hopeful if he could gain traction. I like Stacy Abrams a lot as well, but I suspect she will be busy if she wins the GA Governorship and finished politically if she does not.