SHOULD Biden run for a 2nd term? (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Biden has lost support from many people who voted for him in the past.
He is getting up there in age.
Here are a couple of sites I'd like to share...
*

Octogenarian Biden begins new year facing age-old question on 2024 race

In the coming months, Biden faces a simple question: will he seek a second term at the end of which he would be 86?

www.theguardian.com

*

Biden 2024? Most Democrats say no thank you: AP-NORC poll

A majority of Democrats now think one term is plenty for President Joe Biden, despite his insistence that he plans to seek reelection in 2024. While Biden has trumpeted his legislative victories and ability to govern, the poll suggests relatively few U.S. adults give him high marks on either...

news.yahoo.com

*
WHAT DO ANY OF YOU THINK?
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEST SERVED BY HAVING PRESIDENT BIDEN RUN FOR ANOTHER TERM OR WOULD A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE BE BETTER?

 

[Heathen]

Gotta love Jon Stewart. Wish this guy would run for office, though he’s said he has no interest. Love his work with advocating for 9/11 first responders

 

[RobF]

Just on the recent back and forth, I think this is one of those things where multiple things can all be true IMO:

From the point of view of the voter, and speaking generally, if it's a first past the post electoral system and you effectively only have two options, and one of them is truly terrible, you really should vote for the other one, both in terms of principle and as a matter of pragmatism. This is a matter of degrees of course; in practice, some votes matter more than others, so the option of voting for a third-party has different implications in a tightly-contested swing state than it does in a locked-in red/blue state, but even from a pragmatic point of view, maximising opposition to the terrible option would seem to be the best approach (since regardless of all the other factors involved, the overall outcome in terms of turnout and raw votes is going to be taken as encouraging or discouraging the policies and approach associated with the terrible candidate).

That said. From the point of view of the party opposing the terrible candidate, they shouldn't take voters for granted and expect them to support them just because they're not the other guy. There's multiple reasons for this; while, as above, IMO voters should suck it up and vote for them on account of the other option being terrible regardless, in practice they're not all going to do this, so it is not, necessarily, the winning strategy it might be.

Additionally, from a broader point of view, the approach this lends itself to - defining policies on a more passive, reactive basis, with winning the next election being the main, or even the only, goal - can also push the party towards their opposition and away from their own positions, and, presumably, their principles. Because, if this kind of approach is being taken, the voters a party can most take for granted are their core supporters. The voters they most want to win are the rest. So to win them, so it goes, they shift towards the opposition. But while that might win an election, I don't think it lends itself to long-term success; rather, it feeds a "they're all the same" mentality, and, if you think of it in terms of competing ideologies, it loses on that ground as well. Because if a party moves away from their principles to win power on the opposition's framing, who's advocating for the original ideology? (And that then leads into the concept of the Overton Window and how it shifts, etc.). It could be argued that if it most important to stop the terrible candidate winning, this would extend to the opposition turning itself into a just not that bad version of the opposition in order to win, but I'd personally argue that's a false dilemma; that is, there are other, better, and more sustainable, routes to victory.

And also, this is why first past the post is a bad electoral system.

So ultimately, my take is that an individual voter should, where there is a truly terrible candidate, suck it up and vote for the other guy, but they should also keep pressure on their party to keep to their principles.

And they should also campaign for electoral reform.

Because this electoral system sucks.

 

[MT15]

There is only one party of the two who will try to enact electoral reform. If that party gets pushed out of power because some people feel frustrated that they didn’t get everything they wanted in 4 years, well, with the state of the other party right now, that would actually hurt all the progressive causes.

Local elections are just as important, and I have committed to voting for Democrats up and down the ballot until the danger is abated. The only election reform we will get from Rs will be further restrictions on voting rights because they are now fully committed to minority rule.

All of America will be run like red states are run. Public health, the environment, public education will all be harmed. Democrats may not be “progressive” enough for some people’s tastes, but they are certainly miles better than what Rs would do. Until we get ranked choice voting, we have to get Rs out of office. There’s only one way to do that.

 

[coldseat]

Gotta love Jon Stewart. Wish this guy would run for office, though he’s said he has no interest. Love his work with advocating for 9/11 first responders

Jon Stewart is an absolute treasure, and he's also right. I don't deride anybody for their concerns over Biden's age, it's a real issue. All I believe is that you have to look at it holistically. When you elect a president, you don't just elect that one position. You elect who's going to run his administrations, our government and all of the ambassadors and federal judges that president selects during their administration. Unless something happens to change either Biden or Trump as the candidates, the difference between the two is stark in that regards.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm just joining this conversation. Didn't have the time to read 40+ pages......but would like to ask the group:

"Why did the democrats run back Joe Biden"? I understand that he beat the likely Republican challenger in 2020 and he has some "wins" over the last 4 years, but the dude is old as dirt (over 80) and is showing signs of cognitive decline. I'm not saying he has dementia or can't run the office, but perception is a strong driver of actions. Despite all of the positive economic numbers, Biden's approval rating is low. It's a virtual dead heat with Trump. That's extremely scary.

Why not run out a younger candidate that can get voters engaged? There's a good chance Biden really screws up if put in a debate. Hell, sometimes he fumbles just delivering from a set of notes. I'm terrified of a second Trump term. Biden is a weak candidate. Dems are taking a huge risk running him back out there.

As Jon Stewart said in his return to The Daily Show - "What the fork are we doing"?

Why did they pick him again? Probably a number of reasons... No sitting President in modern times (post 1950's primary electoral reforms) has ever lost his party's primary. Incumbency is a real thing, a sitting President can do so many things to solidify his grasp on party leadership.

Second, by most metrics he's had a successful Presidency. Good economic numbers, better inflation than the rest of the industrialized world. His initial rallying of the West to defend Ukraine was objectively very good, and helped solidify US leadership in the Western world. He managed to pass major legislation with a razor thin majority (and that includes some on the fence Democrats like Sinema and Manchin). He's had some good legislative wins that match the Democratic parties platforms despite thin majorities, and the Democrats managed to hold onto the Senate and had one of the best mid-term elections for the party of the sitting President in the House.

So, given he's the sitting President. He beat Trump last time. And probably did better legislatively than they were expecting... they're sticking with him.

I also think the problem is that they didn't groom a successor or a slate of successors. I think they'd hope it would be Harris, but it appears they don't have confidence in her electability and she hasn't been the face of any successful programs, at least not that I can think of. Another rising star Buttigieg did not distinguish himself either. There are some Democratic governors who might be good but the most ready to go of all of them, Newsome, hasn't seemed to be able to take the reigns.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Gotta love Jon Stewart. Wish this guy would run for office, though he’s said he has no interest. Love his work with advocating for 9/11 first responders

So, I actually thought of you while watching him last night... lol. I agree with him because it's also what I've said in this thread.... you should criticize the candidates where you think they deserve. But criticizing them is different then not voting for them and letting someone so much objectively worse win, when you know that will hurt so many people, and potentially lower your chances of being able to make changes in the future.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Just on the recent back and forth, I think this is one of those things where multiple things can all be true IMO:

From the point of view of the voter, and speaking generally, if it's a first past the post electoral system and you effectively only have two options, and one of them is truly terrible, you really should vote for the other one, both in terms of principle and as a matter of pragmatism. This is a matter of degrees of course; in practice, some votes matter more than others, so the option of voting for a third-party has different implications in a tightly-contested swing state than it does in a locked-in red/blue state, but even from a pragmatic point of view, maximising opposition to the terrible option would seem to be the best approach (since regardless of all the other factors involved, the overall outcome in terms of turnout and raw votes is going to be taken as encouraging or discouraging the policies and approach associated with the terrible candidate).

That said. From the point of view of the party opposing the terrible candidate, they shouldn't take voters for granted and expect them to support them just because they're not the other guy. There's multiple reasons for this; while, as above, IMO voters should suck it up and vote for them on account of the other option being terrible regardless, in practice they're not all going to do this, so it is not, necessarily, the winning strategy it might be.

Additionally, from a broader point of view, the approach this lends itself to - defining policies on a more passive, reactive basis, with winning the next election being the main, or even the only, goal - can also push the party towards their opposition and away from their own positions, and, presumably, their principles. Because, if this kind of approach is being taken, the voters a party can most take for granted are their core supporters. The voters they most want to win are the rest. So to win them, so it goes, they shift towards the opposition. But while that might win an election, I don't think it lends itself to long-term success; rather, it feeds a "they're all the same" mentality, and, if you think of it in terms of competing ideologies, it loses on that ground as well. Because if a party moves away from their principles to win power on the opposition's framing, who's advocating for the original ideology? (And that then leads into the concept of the Overton Window and how it shifts, etc.). It could be argued that if it most important to stop the terrible candidate winning, this would extend to the opposition turning itself into a just not that bad version of the opposition in order to win, but I'd personally argue that's a false dilemma; that is, there are other, better, and more sustainable, routes to victory.

And also, this is why first past the post is a bad electoral system.

So ultimately, my take is that an individual voter should, where there is a truly terrible candidate, suck it up and vote for the other guy, but they should also keep pressure on their party to keep to their principles.

And they should also campaign for electoral reform.

Because this electoral system sucks.

This is a very good take. We really ought to have ranked choice voting for every type of election - primaries and general.

 

[Dragon]

I'm just joining this conversation. Didn't have the time to read 40+ pages......but would like to ask the group:

"Why did the democrats run back Joe Biden"? I understand that he beat the likely Republican challenger in 2020 and he has some "wins" over the last 4 years, but the dude is old as dirt (over 80) and is showing signs of cognitive decline. I'm not saying he has dementia or can't run the office, but perception is a strong driver of actions. Despite all of the positive economic numbers, Biden's approval rating is low. It's a virtual dead heat with Trump. That's extremely scary.

Why not run out a younger candidate that can get voters engaged? There's a good chance Biden really screws up if put in a debate. Hell, sometimes he fumbles just delivering from a set of notes. I'm terrified of a second Trump term. Biden is a weak candidate. Dems are taking a huge risk running him back out there.

As Jon Stewart said in his return to The Daily Show - "What the fork are we doing"?

Because he delivered - that is why..

His age aside he curbed the inflation, strengthened the US economy after covid/Ukraine, supported unions and better wages, got an infrastructure plan through congress that will provide better improvements of the infrastructure than has been done for +30 years. His policies are getting critical productions back from abroad securing well paying jobs and less dependency on imports from Asia. He forged an alliance against Putins agression after Trumps disasterous meetings with other Nato leaders. And yet - despite all that some people just look at his age... Yes there certainly are things he haven't done but with a totally obstructive house taken into consideration - I think that he has more than earned another term..

Lastly for those who think that they may get another chance in 4 years if Trump should be elected, I say no you wont, Read up on project 2025 and you will see why this election is critical - not only for the US but for the entire world. If Trump is president in jan, 2025 Putin will go all out in Europe and Xi will simultaneously go after Taiwan....


First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


....................................

It's more about delivering on key initiatives that the American people want. If a candidate like Biden promises something and then backslides to delivering none of the original promise or compromising with Republicans on some shabby half-measure - well, they have to deal with the repercussions of it.

To put it simply, it's more than about one election. It is always more than that and always has been.



..........................................................

The only ones who are going to deal with the consequences of not voting for Biden is we the people.
Biden will just go home, the DNC will just move on. WE will pay, and pay dearly. You could somewhat defend your take in many elections but NOT this one.

 

[UriUT]

This is another reason for constantly voting. Up until I looked it up moments ago, I was under the impression that louisiana was a 60-40 breakdown. According to the sos stats of registered voters and pew, it's almost an even split.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

Registration Statistics - Statewide

www.sos.la.gov

Maybe there are right leaning dems...Yet repubs have a super majority, based on gerrymandering the crap out of the state, voter suppresion mechanism, and perception, leading to low turnout, ie this recent gov race.

Edit. Ps, low turnout indubitably leads to repubs victory. Look up the turnout in mich for the 2012, 2016, 2020 pres race.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Jon Stewart is an absolute treasure, and he's also right. I don't deride anybody for their concerns over Biden's age, it's a real issue. All I believe is that you have to look at it holistically. When you elect a president, you don't just elect that one position. You elect who's going to run his administrations, our government and all of the ambassadors and federal judges that president selects during their administration. Unless something happens to change either Biden or Trump as the candidates, the difference between the two is stark in that regards.

which this wish was mentioned much more

 

[samiam5211]

This is another reason for constantly voting. Up until I looked it up moments ago, I was under the impression that louisiana was a 60-40 breakdown. According to the sos stats of registered voters and pew, it's almost an even split.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

Registration Statistics - Statewide

www.sos.la.gov

Maybe there are right leaning dems...Yet repubs have a super majority, based on gerrymandering the crap out of the state, voter suppresion mechanism, and perception, leading to low turnout, ie this recent gov race.

Edit. Ps, low turnout indubitably leads to repubs victory. Look up the turnout in mich for the 2012, 2016, 2020 pres race.

Louisiana or any southern state may not be the best barometer. There are still a ton of old segregationists who haven't bothered to switch their party registration.

My parents are registered democrats, but haven't voted for a Democrat since the 70s.

 

[UriUT]

Louisiana or any southern state may not be the best barometer. There are still a ton of old segregationists who haven't bothered to switch their party registration.

My parents are registered democrats, but haven't voted for a Democrat since the 70s.

I get that, but look at the 700k black dems. With that number and even say 50% old school dems, we should not have a super majority legislature and the skewed vote count we have every pres election cycle. Perception needs to change.

My point is that it's not an insurmountable gap.

 

[Taurus]

I get that, but look at the 700k black dems. With that number and even say 50% old school dems, we should not have a super majority legislature and the skewed vote count we have every pres election cycle. Perception needs to change.

My point is that it's not an insurmountable gap.

Alabama managed to elect a Democrat Senator. All it took was 95% turnout of the black women's vote and a hugely apathetic white vote.

Of course, they then turned around and elected the ignorant cipher known as Tommy Tuberville.

 

[UriUT]

Alabama managed to elect a Democrat Senator. All it took was 95% turnout of the black women's vote and a hugely apathetic white vote.

Of course, they then turned around and elected the ignorant cipher known as Tommy Tuberville.

Right, and I just checked the tally for the Landry vote. He garnered ~550k votes. Extraordinary low turnout. Folks just gave up the idea that his victory was forgone. Anti Landry repubs didn't show up either.

 

[J-DONK]

Jon Stewart is an absolute treasure, and he's also right. I don't deride anybody for their concerns over Biden's age, it's a real issue. All I believe is that you have to look at it holistically. When you elect a president, you don't just elect that one position. You elect who's going to run his administrations, our government and all of the ambassadors and federal judges that president selects during their administration. Unless something happens to change either Biden or Trump as the candidates, the difference between the two is stark in that regards.

I have no idea why Biden is running. The whole point of having the incumbent president run is the usual incumbent advantage. The polling is showing over, and over any Democrat vs Trump does better then Biden. It's like deja vu of 2016 all over again. Every establishment Democrat ignored that HRC was by far the worst candidate to run against Trump.

Stuff like this is what's going to happen if Trump wins which is nightmare fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

 

[Heathen]

You could somewhat defend your take in many elections but NOT this one.

I'm not trying to argue - but this could easily be false.

Who's to say that the GOP doesn't have 5 more Trumps after this one because they saw what seemed to work?

Look at guys like Ramaswamy and DeSantis. They may not be making fun of Kim Jung un online, but they might try to turn the US into a theocracy more quickly than Trump.

 

[MT15]

I'm not trying to argue - but this could easily be false.

Who's to say that the GOP doesn't have 5 more Trumps after this one because they saw what seemed to work?

Look at guys like Ramaswamy and DeSantis. They may not be making fun of Kim Jung un online, but they might try to turn the US into a theocracy more quickly than Trump.

The best way to head that parade of mini-Trumps off is to soundly defeat Trump again this year at the polls. Neither of those two have the complete package to sway people like Trump, however. Trump has an ability to almost hypnotize people. They don’t.