Should Joe Biden Run For Re-Election In 2024?

[JB]

Good to see the fed showed that they are serious about tackling inflation by implementing a 75 point basis rate hike today.

Also happy to hear that Biden's scheduled to travel to Saudi Arabia to try to get the oil taps flowing. No guarantees, but that will go a long way in bringing down inflation. Smart overdue move.

I don't see a soft landing though, a mild recession is highly probable at this point, but it will probably be followed by an economic upswing once things are reset.

If there is a turn around by the summer of 2024, I think the prospects for Biden being re-elected is pretty strong (Should he choose to run)

Now that the Atlanta FED has forecasted zero GDP growth (as of yesterday) for Q2, a recession is guaranteed. How bad it will be will depend on many factors and how the administration can mitigate things. If it's a full blown recession, it may be better for Biden not to run again.

I work in the real estate/property management world and the bubble has been pricked with the new rate hike, and the slow letting out of air will exacerbate if they're raised again next month which is likely. A buyer who was approved for a $1M home in December is now approved for a $500K home due to rate hikes, and it goes down the line to all price brackets. But it has to be this way, home prices have been insane. Just depends on how nasty the crash will be.

As for Buttigieg, I look at the condition of South Bend which he was mayor of before he moved to Washington and based on that, I wouldn't back him.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Now that the Atlanta FED has forecasted zero GDP growth (as of yesterday) for Q2, a recession is guaranteed. How bad it will be will depend on many factors and how the administration can mitigate things. If it's a full blown recession, it may be better for Biden not to run again.

I work in the real estate/property management world and the bubble has been pricked with the new rate hike, and the slow letting out of air will exacerbate if they're raised again next month which is likely. A buyer who was approved for a $1M home in December is now approved for a $500K home due to rate hikes, and it goes down the line to all price brackets. But it has to be this way, home prices have been insane. Just depends on how nasty the crash will be.

As for Buttigieg, I look at the condition of South Bend which he was mayor of before he moved to Washington and based on that, I wouldn't back him.

The real estate world didn't learn its lessons from 2008.

[Mister Mets]

I caucused for Buttigieg and many more people seemed concerned with his age and relative inexperience than his sexual orientation.

He did really well for himself as a 38 year old small-city mayor.

Now he's more experienced as a cabinet member, and has kids.

He is the second most-likely future President in the Democratic party.

The only way I can see this happening smoothly is if Harris (or the party) decide to back Secretary Pete. Which is highly unlikely. But you never know, rational minds might win?

It seems very unlikely that Harris will back Secretary Pete. She recognizes that she has a good chance of being President.

A Kamala Harris with the humility to consider stepping aside for Buttigieg would likely be much more popular.

The smartest move for Democrats would be to boost Harris right now, to give her chances to increase her favorability ratings. It's not easy, given her unwillingness to prep for meetings or the way her background leaves her poorly suited to help the administration (She doesn't know Congress very well, and her experience as a prosecutor isn't helpful if any special project she's given would be seen as threatening the independence of the justice department.) But there should be some ways to raise the profile of someone who is more likely than anyone else of being the next President.

If Kamala Harris had the approval rating of a standard Governor, there'd be less stress for Democrats. It would be obvious Biden's going to be a one-termer, and the lack of an obvious Harris alternative wouldn't be a big deal.

The reasons that Mayor Pete needs to stay the Hell off of the board have nothing to do with who he is married to...

First off, the guy was in a cabinet position during a supply chain breakdown. For all of the stuff that they said Republicans would hit Biden/Sanders with? This is straight up "Stuff That Actually Happened..." that they can go after the guy on. Never mind that plenty of Americans saw it first hand.

Past that, look around and watch any of the clips where the guy is talking about electric vehicles. Nicest way to say it? He sounds right around "Beyond Completely..." out of touch when it comes to how realistic affording an electric vehicle is for your regular "Working Class..." American family.

He's better than you give him credit for. He seemed more effective than anyone else in the Democratic party in talking about the harms of the formula shortage.

But yeah Democrats can be tone-deaf talking about electric cars. They're getting better and cheaper, but it's not yet a panacea, certainly not for most middle-class families.

[Mister Mets]

Mark Leibovich, one of the top political reporters, has a good piece for The Atlantic about why Joe Biden shouldn't run for President again.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...n-2024/661297/

One reality is that he would be 86 after the end of his second term.

Stepping aside would permit Biden to shed the demands of being a disciplined candidate (never his strong suit). It would be immediately liberating, allowing the president to focus on what he’s extremely well suited to: being a familiar mensch and champion and consoler to a country in dire need of one. He could off-load all of the burdens and suspicions that come with electoral ambitions. Nothing buys goodwill for a politician like self-removal from consideration.

The “concerns about Biden’s age” matter received a fibrous super-boost on Sunday when The New York Times published a front-page report that was based on conversations with nearly 50 Democratic officials across the country. Almost everyone interviewed expressed “deep concern” about the elderly state of the man in the chair. Biden’s advanced age was presented as a kind of proxy for the tired and hobbled state of his agenda and the Democratic Party. To see the sentiment presented so universally among prominent Democrats was rather jarring.

“The presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term,” David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Barack Obama, told the Times, putting a finer, fun-with-numbers point on the story.

The broader subtext of the Times article—and, in a sense, every article about Biden’s age—is that the matchup between America’s current condition and the doctor on call feels untenable.

This was not true in 2020. Biden said he was running for president—for the third time—because he viewed the prospect of Donald Trump’s reelection as an existential threat to the nation. Poll after poll revealed that “electability” was the most important quality that Democrats were seeking in a 2020 nominee. Biden scared the fewest people. They mostly just wanted someone who could get rid of Trump. Someone who could come into office, not tweet like a madman, not propose bleach as a COVID treatment, not impugn the reputations of war heroes, civil-rights icons, and disabled reporters. Someone who could just be decent and serious and leave America in relative peace for a little while.

And Biden did this. He performed the most vital service of his presidency before it even began, on November 3, 2020. He showed up on January 20, 2021, and swore his oath in front of 25,000 National Guard troops charged with protecting Washington from his predecessor’s most fervent supporters—kind of a yikes moment for our democracy, you might recall. Officials I’ve spoken with who were on the inauguration stage that day say the overwhelming sentiment was one of relief; people were milling about thanking one another for their various roles in helping along this exceedingly precarious transition.

[Captain Nostalgia]

Now that the Atlanta FED has forecasted zero GDP growth (as of yesterday) for Q2, a recession is guaranteed. How bad it will be will depend on many factors and how the administration can mitigate things. If it's a full blown recession, it may be better for Biden not to run again.

I work in the real estate/property management world and the bubble has been pricked with the new rate hike, and the slow letting out of air will exacerbate if they're raised again next month which is likely. A buyer who was approved for a $1M home in December is now approved for a $500K home due to rate hikes, and it goes down the line to all price brackets. But it has to be this way, home prices have been insane. Just depends on how nasty the crash will be.

Zero GDP for Q2, that's bad, but if were going to have a recession better sooner than later. The equity and bond markets have been pretty brutal....to say the least. The S&P is now officially in a bear market, but a lot of quarterly earnings are still coming in as positive, so if the next CPI report shows a drop in inflation, we may get a turn around for a bit.

Yes the real estate markets are going to pop with the rise in interest rates. I'm watching North of the border in Canada, but if rates go to anticipated 75% up here, they are stating that close to 1/4 of people won't be able to make there mortage payments in the big cities.

I don't usually like to stick my nose in other countries politics, but who you vote in, has a big impact on us economically, and your last President was....well.....I don't want to see him in power again.

(then again I think a fully integrated North American Union is better than building border walls....an unpopular opinion I know)

[JB]

The real estate world didn't learn its lessons from 2008.

It's true, it definitely did not. Now all the "all cash" buyers that have been waiting on the sidelines are salivating to gobble everything up once prices come down. Mass foreclosures on deck once again.

Zero GDP for Q2, that's bad, but if were going to have a recession better sooner than later. The equity and bond markets have been pretty brutal....to say the least. The S&P is now officially in a bear market, but a lot of quarterly earnings are still coming in as positive, so if the next CPI report shows a drop in inflation, we may get a turn around for a bit.

Yes the real estate markets are going to pop with the rise in interest rates. I'm watching North of the border in Canada, but if rates go to anticipated 75% up here, they are stating that close to 1/4 of people won't be able to make there mortage payments in the big cities.

I don't usually like to stick my nose in other countries politics, but who you vote in, has a big impact on us economically, and your last President was....well.....I don't want to see him in power again.

(then again I think a fully integrated North American Union is better than building border walls....an unpopular opinion I know)

Absolutely right, especially the bold. People who purchased homes in the last 6 months here made a big mistake. I advised my buyers to wait because they won't be getting their investment back, much less a profit. Some listened, some didn't. I read that the Bank of England just raised interest rates by 25 basis points to 1.25%, highest in 13 years. We're likely looking at a global real estate bubble burst.

[Mister Mets]

Now that the Atlanta FED has forecasted zero GDP growth (as of yesterday) for Q2, a recession is guaranteed. How bad it will be will depend on many factors and how the administration can mitigate things. If it's a full blown recession, it may be better for Biden not to run again.

I work in the real estate/property management world and the bubble has been pricked with the new rate hike, and the slow letting out of air will exacerbate if they're raised again next month which is likely. A buyer who was approved for a $1M home in December is now approved for a $500K home due to rate hikes, and it goes down the line to all price brackets. But it has to be this way, home prices have been insane. Just depends on how nasty the crash will be.

As for Buttigieg, I look at the condition of South Bend which he was mayor of before he moved to Washington and based on that, I wouldn't back him.

If there's a recession, Biden's more likely to lose, but it doesn't mean he'll perform worse than Harris will.

On the other hand, it may be better for Democrats to nominate Harris in 2024 because if she wins she'll have a better chance in 2028 than in an open election, and if she loses she won't be a major contender in the 2028 primary.

[Oracle]

Sadly they dont really have anyone else. years ago they threw all their eggs into the Clinton Basket and when that didnt happen they floundered for a bit. The party wasnt really unified. and even when Biden got elected the Party is still not unified. And they dont really know what direction they want to go. Stay in the center? Go progressive? And the two sides snipe at each other. Even AOC said she wasnt sure if she could get behind Biden as the nomination. And when Biden was elected given his age the Democrats should have been grooming his hier thinking he would be a one and done. But they didnt. Harris never got out there for whatever reason, Her own fault or others holding her back I am not sure but she really didnt get face forward. And to be honest no one else in the party did either. The most talked about Democrats not Named Biden it seemed where Joe Manchin and Sinema and that was because they held back Bidens agenda.

This post was a good analysis of the democratic party.

On-Topic: I'm okay with any of the top democratic contenders for president. I'm okay with any one of them as long as a republican doesn't become president. Someone has to run this country even though our options for a solid candidate of the democratic or "independent" party isn't the greatest, but I sure as hell don't want there to be another republican becoming president. I've had more than enough of my share of Trump, and I don't want anyone as crazy as him or DeSantis becoming president.

[JB]

If there's a recession, Biden's more likely to lose, but it doesn't mean he'll perform worse than Harris will.

On the other hand, it may be better for Democrats to nominate Harris in 2024 because if she wins she'll have a better chance in 2028 than in an open election, and if she loses she won't be a major contender in the 2028 primary.

As reported this morning, Q2 GDP came in at -0.9% marking the second consecutive quarter of declining GDP. If we don't see improvement in Q3, I believe the Democrats should start figuring out who to prop up for 2024 if they aren't doing so already.

[CaptainEurope]

As reported this morning, Q2 GDP came in at -0.9% marking the second consecutive quarter of declining GDP. If we don't see improvement in Q3, I believe the Democrats should start figuring out who to prop up for 2024 if they aren't doing so already.

There is a growing number of young people who see growth not as a value, but a cancer on a dying world. We need a new Definition of prosperity that doesn't use up the world's resources at an insane speed.
So the economy is slowing down while people still find jobs?
Good.

[JB]

There is a growing number of young people who see growth not as a value, but a cancer on a dying world. We need a new Definition of prosperity that doesn't use up the world's resources at an insane speed.
So the economy is slowing down while people still find jobs?
Good.

Well when you have more Americans working multiple jobs than ever before, it's not as pretty as it seems. We have now a record-breaking amount of people working TWO full-time jobs to make ends meet.

To the topic of the thread, at this rate I don't think Biden should run again in 2024.

[shooshoomanjoe]

I didn't think Biden should have run in 2020. Dems aren't doing much to motivate voters for the mid-terms, I hope they have a plan for 2024.

[babyblob]

As reported this morning, Q2 GDP came in at -0.9% marking the second consecutive quarter of declining GDP. If we don't see improvement in Q3, I believe the Democrats should start figuring out who to prop up for 2024 if they aren't doing so already.

I think if Biden is not going to run again he needs to make it known with in the party so they can start getting their next choice out there. If he has already I dont know who they have in mind. Maybe they are waiting till after the mid terms to really show their cards?

[Mister Mets]

There is a growing number of young people who see growth not as a value, but a cancer on a dying world. We need a new Definition of prosperity that doesn't use up the world's resources at an insane speed.
So the economy is slowing down while people still find jobs?
Good.

This would be a bold political argument to make.

As reported this morning, Q2 GDP came in at -0.9% marking the second consecutive quarter of declining GDP. If we don't see improvement in Q3, I believe the Democrats should start figuring out who to prop up for 2024 if they aren't doing so already.

I don't think it's going to work that way.

Establishment Democrats can nudge certain outcomes, like getting Klobuchar and Buttigieg to drop out in support of Biden when it was clear that neither was going to be the nominee. But they're not able to prop people up. At some point the voters will decide.

If it's a primary against Biden, he is currently quite vulnerable, although it's still going to be a delicate dance. It could be useful for Democrats to unite to demonstrate what voters should expect during a respectful primary against an incumbent, although the incumbents might not like the precedent it sets.

If Biden opts not to run, Harris is the obvious favorite, with the institutional advantages and name recognition of being Vice President, and the message of what it would represent to have a woman of color as the presidential nominee. That would be difficult for Gavin Newsom or Elizabeth Warren to beat, even with institutional support.

I think if Biden is not going to run again he needs to make it known with in the party so they can start getting their next choice out there. If he has already I dont know who they have in mind. Maybe they are waiting till after the mid terms to really show their cards?

He's said it a few times. They're not taking it seriously given his age.

I'm not sure the time thing is going to matter.

If he announces May 2023 that he's going to focus on running for a full term, there will be plenty of Democrats entering the race and they'll have over half a year before the first primaries and caucuses.

[CaptainEurope]

Well when you have more Americans working multiple jobs than ever before, it's not as pretty as it seems. We have now a record-breaking amount of people working TWO full-time jobs to make ends meet.

To the topic of the thread, at this rate I don't think Biden should run again in 2024.

As the pandemic erupted in the U.S. in 2020, roughly 4% of employed people held multiple jobs in the U.S., according to data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. By June of this year, that figure had jumped nearly a full percentage point.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflati...n-second-jobs/


So with all this inflation, it's 5% of the workforce that needs a second job. And the vast majority of those are not two full time jobs. The 5% also includes people who work two or more part time jobs, like 30 hours at an office plus a weekend shit at a restaurant. I've done that, here in Germany.