Should Joe Biden Run For Re-Election In 2024?

[Mister Mets]

So you in the last century you had Truman, who was basically appointed by FDR and coming off the most successful run of a President arguably ever (and it was still close). Then you have Carter who came off as a decent and humble alternative after coming off of the Nixon scandal and Gerald Ford (again, very lucky circumstances). Then you have the most electrifying political speaker of our lifetimes running against the most hated politician in our lifetimes. Yes, it's possible for a dark horse to win. But without outside circumstances weighing in their favor it's extremely unlikely. Parties tend to be conservative/cautious because they want the best possible percentage for a win.

That gets to a different point beyond winning a general election. There are two new questions: Do dark horses have a better chance of winning a general election? Do we know if dark horses who lost primaries would have performed differently in the general election.

Zauriel listed dark horses who became President. He didn't really address dark horses who won primaries but lost the general election.
In 1940, Republicans nominated businessman Wendell Wilkie. He was a dark horse. He didn't run a formal primary campaign.
In 1944 and 1948, Republicans nominated New York Governor Tom Dewey. Not a dark horse.
In 1952 and 1956, Democrats nominated establishment favorite former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, grandson of a former vice president. Nor a dark horse.
In 1960, Republicans nominated Vice President Richard Nixon. Not a dark horse.
In 1964, Republicans nominated conservative favorite Barry Goldwater. For our purposes, he's dark horse.
In 1968, Democrats nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Not a dark horse.
In 1972, Democrats nominated progressive favorite George McGovern. He's essentially their Goldwater.
In 1984, Democrats nominated former Vice President Walter Mondale. Not a dark horse.
In 1988, Democrats nominated Dukakis after the frontrunner had a sex scandal. Dark horse.
In 1996, Republicans nominated Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the next line. Not a dark horse.
In 2000, Democrats nominated Vice President Al Gore. Not a dark horse.
In 2004, Democrats nominated an establishment favorite Senator in a field without a clear frontrunner. Probably not a dark horse.
In 2008, Republicans nominated a prominent senator who had finished second in the previous primary. Probably not a dark horse.
In 2012, Republicans nominated a prominent former governor who had finished second in the previous primary. Probably not a dark horse.
In 2016, Democrats nominated a former first lady and secretary of state who had finished second in the previous primary. Not a dark horse.

There seem to be three dark horses among the losers, compared to a dozen establishment favorites, two were allowed to run again. Dark horses may seem to have a better batting average among winners, although an overlooked question is how political parties behave in elections when they're not favored to win. Republicans should have won 2016, so Trump's win isn't that impressive. Fundamentals were good for the incumbent in 1964 and 1972, so a more generic challenger wouldn't have lost, although the extent of the defeat might not be as significant.

[hyped78]

He is not viewed that way by me. I think he has done all he could short of troops in Ukraine. I think it was smart of him to resist the calls for a no fly zone.

I know it is fun to think of the USA riding in with troops and tanks and pushing Russia back. But we are not going to start a major war over the Ukraine. And if China invades we wont start a major war to defend them. Sanctions are all that could be done. And as you said that would be tricky because China has their hands in so much more then Russia.

Yeah, I totally agree with that

AOC will be of age in 2025 so fox is predicting (with fear mongering of course) that she will run.

She's too radical/ too far to the left to win the WH, IMO

And as I have said before, few knew who Barack Obama was in 2006 or that G W Bush was a viable candidate in 1996, or Clinton in 1998. And any talk of front runner now is just name recognition. In 2014, Rudy and Jeb were the front runners.

Clinton in 1988?

You have a good point but there are also examples of clear frontrunners emerging early, e.g. Gore for 2000. I guess overall it's like you say, it's still too early.

In fairness to Obama if you did pay any attention to politics at all his keynote speech at the Democratic Nomination in '04 was electrifying. I was saying, "who the hell is that, and when's he running?" Sadly made Kerry's "I'm...reporting....for....duty." anti-charisma stand out strongly in contrast. But he wasn't a complete unknown. For those who haven't seen it, or just up for some nostalgia:

Great speech, "the pundits like to slice and dice..."

And the Dean Scream was an early example of some of the problems in our media that have continued unto today.

Why?
At least he seems to poke fun at it - https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/15/p...m-2/index.html

[hyped78]

Weird how pouring trillions into the pockets of the wealthy is never 'inflationary', but helping regular people always is.

Anti-capitalism speech #1 - and then you don't consider yourself "far-left"

It isn't, because they don't spend it, they just put it into foreign bank accounts. Or occasionally buy a 5th or 6th home, or a bigger yacht. They also more stock which makes the market artificially higher.

Anti-capitalism speech #2 - and then you also don't consider yourself "far-left"

Larry Summers has seen every act of a Democratic President as inflationary since 2008, that is why him being "right" now is pure BS. He also said it would be because of the stimulus package, which we know with certainty was a very, very small part of the larger causes of the current trends.

"very, very small part" - again not correct (or do you want to quantify what you're saying?)

[numberthirty]

Anti-capitalism speech #1 - and then you don't consider yourself "far-left"



Anti-capitalism speech #2 - and then you also don't consider yourself "far-left"

...

Politely?

That pair of takes is utterly and completely nonsensical.

In the same way that a person who does not want his/her police force to be Judge Death(well, not even Judge Dredd...) is not actually "Anit-Cop" because they are simply against folks who are stepping outside of the actual boundaries that should contain legitimate "Cop..." activity?

Speaking out against capitalism that is rigged and full of bribery is not "Anti-Capitalist..."'

It is against what passes for "Capitalism..." being a deck so stacked that one can scarcely recognize that it is, indeed, an actual deck.

[hyped78]

Politely?

That pair of takes is utterly and completely nonsensical.

In the same way that a person who does not want his/her police force to be Judge Death(well, not even Judge Dredd...) is not actually "Anit-Cop" because they are simply against folks who are stepping outside of the actual boundaries that should contain legitimate "Cop..." activity?

Speaking out against capitalism that is rigged and full of bribery is not "Anti-Capitalist..."'

It is against what passes for "Capitalism..." being a deck so stacked that one can scarcely recognize that it is, indeed, an actual deck.

I think you're missing the bigger picture. It's not about those two posts, it's about those two posters

[numberthirty]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. It's not about those two posts, it's about those two posters

Neither of whom took an even remotely "Far Left..." position there.

You might as well be calling either of them "Far Left..." if they believe that a bank should not be able to charge a "Loan Shark..." rate.

[hyped78]

Neither of whom took an even remotely "Far Left..." position there.

You might as well be calling either of them "Far Left..." if they believe that a bank should not be able to charge a "Loan Shark..." rate.

Context matters, my friend!

[hyped78]

I don't understand why age is such a big deal when vice presidents and the 25th amendment exist.

Because voters are voting for someone they believe will complete the full term.

[CSTowle]

30 usually gets attacked from the right (relatively speaking, solidly center-left posters) by those two quite often in the main politics thread. 30's far left, by this board's standards.

[hyped78]

30 usually gets attacked from the right (relatively speaking, solidly center-left posters) by those two quite often in the main politics thread. 30's far left, by this board's standards.

Oh? I didn't know that. I don't remember seeing if he filled in the politics matrix on the other thread.

And I have nothing against the far-left, btw. He can be as far to the democratic left as he wishes

[CaptainEurope]

30 usually gets attacked from the right (relatively speaking, solidly center-left posters) by those two quite often in the main politics thread. 30's far left, by this board's standards.

I've not been here long, but I don't remember 30 ever getting attacked for a right wing poster. He or she constantly criticizes Democrats.

[PaulBullion]

Dark Brandon shall rise again.

[otte40]

I think he should start although it is still a bit early to say that I would rather Biden start than Trump I am not from the USA but this is my opinion only

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, I totally agree with that



She's too radical/ too far to the left to win the WH, IMO



Clinton in 1988?

You have a good point but there are also examples of clear frontrunners emerging early, e.g. Gore for 2000. I guess overall it's like you say, it's still too early.



Great speech, "the pundits like to slice and dice..."



Why?
At least he seems to poke fun at it - https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/15/p...m-2/index.html

AOC is interesting as a potential contender.

She's legally eligible to run in 2024, since she'll be 35 a month before election.

She gets more attention than most legislators, and is probably the most prominent member of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.

An unsuccessful bid could expose as a paper tiger, but it's also possible that there won't be better opportunities later.

[hyped78]

AOC is interesting as a potential contender.

She's legally eligible to run in 2024, since she'll be 35 a month before election.

She gets more attention than most legislators, and is probably the most prominent member of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.

An unsuccessful bid could expose as a paper tiger, but it's also possible that there won't be better opportunities later.

Others agree with that:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...trump-in-2024/

I personally don't see it, but stranger things have happened.