Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Should Pres. Joe Biden run for reelection?


vcczar
 Share

Should Pres. Joe Biden run for reelection?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Pres. Joe Biden run for reelection in 2024?

  2. 2. Is Kamala Harris more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  3. 3. Is Pete Buttigieg more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  4. 4. Is Bernie Sanders more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  5. 5. Is Elizabeth Warren more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  6. 6. Is Gretchen Whitmer more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  7. 7. Is Gavin Newsom more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  8. 8. Is Cory Booker more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  9. 9. Is Raphael Warnock more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  10. 10. Is Hillary Clinton more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  11. 11. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  12. 12. Is Kyrsten Sinema more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  13. 13. Is Michelle Obama more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  14. 14. Is Bill Maher (TV political show host) more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?

  15. 15. Is Joe Manchin more likely to defeat Donald Trump than Pres. Joe Biden in 2024?



Recommended Posts

Here's my thoughts on this:

  • I'll certainly vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee and if there is no left-leaning 3rd party with a realistic shot at 270 EVs, which there won't be. 
  • While I don't think Joe Biden has been incompetent, he hasn't been inspiring. I think this is an age thing. Biden in 2008 would have been a different president. 
  • I think Biden is unpopular enough and old enough that any incumbency boost he'd have is gone, and I think a younger, more dynamic politician could beat him in the primaries or at least help sink him as was the case with Jimmy Carter. 
  • I think Biden only has a shot at beating Trump. 
  • I think a younger, more dynamic Democrat would not only beat Trump but could possibly defeat DeSantis or any other GOPer friendly to MAGA, while I think Biden loses to anyone except for Trump. 
  • I think Biden needs to get his approval up to 45% on average before Midterms. If he doesn't he should announce early, so Democrats can find potential candidates early on. 
  • I favor Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think she'll be the most electable. Whitmer, Booker, and Warnock have the best shot at beating any MAGA-friendly GOP nominee, although it will be a close race. Whitmer would help in keeping WI, MI, and PA, and she'll likely be better at getting women to vote than Clinton was. Booker would likely keep PA, MI, and might help in GA. Warnock would keep GA and would likely help in MI. I think keeping GA is essential because I think losing WI and AZ is likely. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't Buttigieg higher? I thought he would be the most electable person in the Biden administration. Can someone Buttigieg-pill me? I know his position as transport sec. in the middle of a gas/energy crisis puts him in a compromising position, but I don't think it's necessarily a worse one compared to Biden's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

Why isn't Buttigieg higher? I thought he would be the most electable person in the Biden administration. Can someone Buttigieg-pill me? I know his position as transport sec. in the middle of a gas/energy crisis puts him in a compromising position, but I don't think it's necessarily a worse one compared to Biden's. 

He's got like zero support among black Americans. This signals death in GA, possibly PA and MI. It also makes it very unlikely NC and FL are competitive. He might have a better shot at keeping AZ and NV than Biden. Warnock's kind of perfect because he would likely win GA, possibly NC, and would help in keeping PA and MI. 

I think Buttigieg has all the makeup to make a great president, but I don't think he can win the key states on campaign. The 2024 election for Democrats will be -- who can win GA, MI, VA, and PA. Anything else is just dessert. I think GA is the key state because if a Democrat wins GA, they'll win these other states. 

I'll say that the top 5 choices for Democrats (in order) at this point for 2024, if you consider the importance of winning all of these states, is 1) Warnock, 2) Booker, 3) M Obama, 4) Whitmer, 5) Biden

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Patine said:

But I will tell you this, @vcczar, if one of the above Democrats is the Democratic candidate, and either Trump (or an heir-apparent Trumpist) or DeSantis is the Republican candidate, and no strong, dynamic, well-funded Third Party candidate(s) with any real solutions and sincerity arise, while the nation will not crumble to dust to burst into civil war, nor will the world end or stop being livable, it will be another major disappointment and lost opportunity for betterment, advancement, rectifying bad patterns of Government that have been to the detriment of so many, and possibly beginning to leave such things behind. This is why I feel a dark horse candidate is the only saving grace. However, I am fully aware, that such a dark horse candidate can EASILY be a major gamble, and can easily be a horrible monster instead.

What’s wrong with DeSantis, Booker, and Michelle Obama in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

So, since this post ISN'T about dark horse candidates and predictions of utter disappointment in generic fashion, and I can tag him legally, as he was in, and in fact, started the  conversation, I'm wondering what @vcczar opines on this specific post.

I don't think Booker is boring at all. He's got a lot of energy. I'm not sure where you're getting boring. He isn't Obama, but he seems much more energetic than 85% of politicians. He speaks well too. 

DeSantis is a politician who, although I disagree with him on everything, is actually a strong candidate from an American conservative point of view. He's way stronger than Trump. I will say, however, that DeSantis's electability is decreasing because he's sort of veering further right, probably for primary votes. 

I think Michelle Obama is the most electable, but I don't think she's the type of person to want to be president, and she'd have a long learning curve despite having been in the White House. As far as communication, she's probably be the best among Democrats, which is why she'd be electable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

This is kind of tying into what I was getting at in a long-winded way. In representative democracy, many cases arise where the most electable is not the best choice, or the most ready or comfortable for the job. I think she'd make a much better Secretary of State. One shouldn't begin formal and practical political experience right at the top. Look at Trump for that!

One shouldn't begin formal and practical political experience right at the top, so you think Michelle should get her on the job learning as the US' chief diplomat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is kind of tying into what I was getting at in a long-winded way. In representative democracy, many cases arise where the most electable is not the best choice, or the most ready or comfortable for the job. I think she'd make a much better Secretary of State. One shouldn't begin formal and practical political experience right at the top. Look at Trump for that!

I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US the most competent politician of the candidates is rarely nominee or president. Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush II, and Clinton were all stronger campaigners, charismatic or likable than they were true presidential executive types capable of running a nation at a top level. I'd argue that FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and (surprise) GHW Bush might be the only ones that were both elected and could have been elected if they were required to go through an executive competency test. 

You'll note that all four had controversial elements in their presidencies. So even the "most ready or most comfortable" is going to make some bad decisions at times. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Patine said:

DeSantis seems like the like the type of politician that is often said to, "have a chip on his shoulder." I don't know over what, exactly, but he seems to fit the psychological profile, and that would DEFINITELY NOT be good, AT ALL, in the White House.

DeSantis has big Short Guy Energy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the big problem with DeSantis is that you can tell from a mile away that he’s just an opportunist and he’s taken over as a leader of the MAGA movement because of his aspirations to be president. In all accounts, in the early stages of DeSantis’ governorship, he was a pretty basic Republican. Lower taxes, less regulations, all that. Even did some good environmental work. But then after the 2020 election he shifted, and everything he’s done since has been to uplift his presidential ambitions by trying to usurp trump as the leader of the MAGA movement. He has no principles and will stoop as low as possible to get what he wants, the presidency. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pilight said:

If not Trump vs. Biden in 2024, then who? Here are the politicians showing signs they could be in the mix

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biden-rematch-desantis-newsom-gop-primary-democrat-options-2022-7

 

I think Whitmer/Warnock or Warnock/Whitmer would be the Democrat's best option if Biden doesn't run and if Warnock wins reelection. Whitmer and Warnock could hold MI and GA.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warnock would mean Georgia's Republican governor appointing a replacement to fill the seat until the next election.  The Democrats don't want that.

Warnock is very light on experience.  Less than half a term in the senate is all he's got.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, pilight said:

Warnock would mean Georgia's Republican governor appointing a replacement to fill the seat until the next election.  The Democrats don't want that.

Warnock is very light on experience.  Less than half a term in the senate is all he's got.

 

48 minutes ago, Patine said:

You mean compared to the absolutely no political offices held by Donald Trump as of 2016, or still nothing other than, "Presidential advisor," roles with highly dubious quality that Donald Trump, Jr. or Ivanka Trump, mentioned as heirs apparent, still have?

Also, Obama was only in the Senate for about 2 years when he ran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Patine said:

You mean compared to the absolutely no political offices held by Donald Trump as of 2016, or still nothing other than, "Presidential advisor," roles with highly dubious quality that Donald Trump, Jr. or Ivanka Trump, mentioned as heirs apparent, still have?

You make an excellent case for not nominating someone with little experience

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing Joe Biden flounder in office reminds me of why Governors used to be the option of first resort for Presidential candidates. The decision making and executive skillset a President is well-served by is hard to develop over a career in the Senate. 

On a separate point, picking Kamala as the running mate was even more catastrophic than I anticipated, her approvals are even lower than Biden's and if he bows out of 2024, he's put his party in a very awkward spot between either nominating someone known to be deeply flawed and likely to lose or passing over the nation's first black woman to serve as Vice President. I don't think Kamala's guaranteed to win an open primary, but I do think running against her will be unpalatable enough to keep some of the Democrats' best options (Whitmer, for example) waiting in the wings for 2028.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShortKing said:

Seeing Joe Biden flounder in office reminds me of why Governors used to be the option of first resort for Presidential candidates. The decision making and executive skillset a President is well-served by is hard to develop over a career in the Senate. 

On a separate point, picking Kamala as the running mate was even more catastrophic than I anticipated, her approvals are even lower than Biden's and if he bows out of 2024, he's put his party in a very awkward spot between either nominating someone known to be deeply flawed and likely to lose or passing over the nation's first black woman to serve as Vice President. I don't think Kamala's guaranteed to win an open primary, but I do think running against her will be unpalatable enough to keep some of the Democrats' best options (Whitmer, for example) waiting in the wings for 2028.

I’m not sure how much is floundering and how much of it is global inflation that no single head of state can control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m not sure how much is floundering and how much of it is global inflation that no single head of state can control. 

No doubt a lot of it is inflation, but from Afghanistan to their covid response to the baby formula shortage, Biden's not proving to be well-matched for the demands of the Presidency.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Afghanistan? You're condemning the realization and acknowledgement that a war that dragged out too long, cost too many lives and spent too much credibility, was bungled thoroughly from early on and suffered miserably from immense mission creep, and became unwinnable? A similar public acknowledgement was one of Nixon's ONLY shining points in office (along with making a tentative peace with China).

I don't think you have to oppose the policy of withdrawal to acknowledge it was done poorly. Moving the timeline to coincide with fighting season, choosing to evacuate military personnel before US civilians, diplomats, journalists, etc, and abandoning Bagram Airforce Base to let your only point of exit be the airport in Kabul (a densely populated metro area that is virtually impossible to secure), and the continued reports of faulty intelligence that overestimated the ANA and underestimated the Taliban, the withdrawal, whether you support it or not, was not managed well at any level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ah. I admit I assumed (especially by the tenor of certain other viewpoints you've made previously) that it was the withdrawal as a whole you opposed by just saying, "Afghanistan," in a rhetorical void. I stand corrected.

Oh no I for sure opposed the withdrawal as a whole, I just think even supporters could, and have, taken issue with how it was conducted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...