Should Joe Biden Run For Re-Election In 2024?

[CSTowle]

No!

Joe did his part. He beat Trump and helped to (temporarily?) save our democracy. Regardless of what happens during his term, his place in history is set. Now it’s time to pass the torch. We don’t need an 82 year old man out on the campaign trail.

Only problem is there doesn’t seem to be another candidate who can win a national election. Harris is wildly unpopular and Sanders is even older than Joe. Hopefully someone emerges in the next 2 years. Gavin Newsom maybe?

Baggage aside (and given we've had Hillary as the nominee, baggage is clearly not a bar) he gives me that same slimy charm feeling I got from John Edwards (or, speaking of Clintons, Bill). There's a fine line between the Joe Biden grip-'n-grin (still smile every time I see that photo of the biker lady sitting on his lap and smiling while her son and husband, I assume, look on with mild disapproval) and just dripping insincerity or clear pandering (see Hillary "always carry my hot sauce with me"/taking a shot of Crown Royal). Whatever else I may criticize Biden for, I think he's the last of the sincere shaking hands/kissing babies old-school politicians. I think he lives for that stuff. We should leave the false veneer types for the MAGA crowd.

Secretary Pete would be my choice; he's amazing!

Speaking of politicians who come off as insincere and scripted. I'd have bet money we'd see a gay President before a black one, so don't think that's a bar (it's not a plus in the General, but it's not a bar). But you need people to believe you're a person with some core beliefs, and he's like Newsom in that "feels like he came from career politician central casting" department. Not a scientific criticism by any means, but there are some politicians (Newsom, Buttigieg, I'd add Cory Booker to that list) who feel like they'd agree to or say they believe anything if it would get them to the next rung on the ladder. I'd vote for any of them against Trump, but I wouldn't want to.

Picture for fun:

Biden.jpg

[Tendrin]

Sadly we have regressed. Some people say we havnt, that these people have always been around so it is nothing new. But they have been more quiet more hidden. No that in itself is a good thing.

But when we have hate groups feeling like they can speak more open and more free, Candidates talking openly about their hatred for LTGBQ+ community. Not just a "I dont believe in gay marriage but a These people are vile, they are groomers, they are sick, they need to be wiped out." We had a hate group answering the call of a former president! That used to be more of the fringe hardcore haters but now it seems every day. Minorites and woman are having rights stripped of them that they had just a couple years ago.

How can anyone not look at this as a major regression in society.

We've regressed in that a certainly loud minority feels the right to be bigoted and loud again -- but acceptance remains high. The only way that number goes down is if we let them dominate the conversation.

[babyblob]

My big issue when I hear the talk about Pete running (And I dont even think he said so far if he is even thinking about it) isnt that I think he will Lose (I do but that is not my main issue)

It is when I hear the talk 90 percent of the time it is not "Well Pete has a plan for this, he wants to do this, this is how he will try and fix that." it is "He is gay he needs to be out there. it is time. All the anti LTGBQ+ people out there We have to get Pete out there."

It would be a gimmick candidate for people. The only reason a lot of people want him out there to run is that he is gay and it will be a "In your face." moment. When there is a serious candidate that is gay I want it to be based on what he can do. I dont want him to get the nod because he is gay. And that is the huge thing that bothers me about the Pete talk.

Not because of his plans or what he can do. But because of his sexual orientation. And that is not right.

[Kieran_Frost]

Actually, he might be the best person to run for exactly that reason. Gay and trans rights have broad acceptance. While the issue of trans-women in sports is often ill understood and full of stereotypes, the exact best way to combat it is to shine a light directly on the GOP's extremism and its ever deepening ties to it. The issue, of course, is can he really broad and diverse support in communities of color? Does he understand what a campaign has to do not to cede and communicate on the latino vote? He's shown he can communicate well and with clarity on his several Fox News appearances, and he did well in Iowa, much to the Sanders' campaigns chagrin.

He'd be such a great candidate. Being a veteran would help stem some of the hate he might get from some of the right's base, as soldiers would respect he actually fort (as most candidates cannot say the same thing).

It's not about faith in the system, honestly. I'm just not sure that politically boxing out Buttigieg because he's gay in this climate is in anyone's best interest. Confronting GOP LGBTQ+ hysteria directly and head on is better than letting it continue to metastasize.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!!

Sadly we have regressed. Some people say we havnt, that these people have always been around so it is nothing new. But they have been more quiet more hidden. No that in itself is a good thing.

But when we have hate groups feeling like they can speak more open and more free, Candidates talking openly about their hatred for LTGBQ+ community. Not just a "I dont believe in gay marriage but a These people are vile, they are groomers, they are sick, they need to be wiped out." We had a hate group answering the call of a former president! That used to be more of the fringe hardcore haters but now it seems every day. Minorites and woman are having rights stripped of them that they had just a couple years ago.

How can anyone not look at this as a major regression in society.

You think this is language that's only coming up... NOW?

Really? You REALLY think JUST NOW is where gay people have been called vile, groomers, sick, they need to be wiped out??? If you think the 80s, 90s and 2000s was just about cute little gay marriage issues with only polite language used about gay people, then... I would encourage you to go open a history book before you talk more on this subject.
#truthbombOFLOVE

We've regressed in that a certainly loud minority feels the right to be bigoted and loud again -- but acceptance remains high. The only way that number goes down is if we let them dominate the conversation.

Categorically my view as well. Acceptance remains high, it's just some are mistaking LOUD outrage for majority outrage. It is not... and it used to be; very much so.

[Tendrin]

My big issue when I hear the talk about Pete running (And I dont even think he said so far if he is even thinking about it) isnt that I think he will Lose (I do but that is not my main issue)

It is when I hear the talk 90 percent of the time it is not "Well Pete has a plan for this, he wants to do this, this is how he will try and fix that." it is "He is gay he needs to be out there. it is time. All the anti LTGBQ+ people out there We have to get Pete out there."

It would be a gimmick candidate for people. The only reason a lot of people want him out there to run is that he is gay and it will be a "In your face." moment. When there is a serious candidate that is gay I want it to be based on what he can do. I dont want him to get the nod because he is gay. And that is the huge thing that bothers me about the Pete talk.

Not because of his plans or what he can do. But because of his sexual orientation. And that is not right.

I get that. But I think we have to recognize the importance and necessity of visibility as a way to combat what's happening. it's the only way forward. Pete's done pretty well describing and promoting the administration, and its plans, in hostile territory like I said. I think he'd have a solid, if moderate platform. Nowhere near what I'd personally want, but I have to recognize that my personal wants in politics aren't anywhere close to majority status.

[babyblob]

You think this is language that's only coming up... NOW?[/SIZE]

Really? You REALLY think JUST NOW is where gay people have been called vile, groomers, sick, they need to be wiped out??? If you think the 80s, 90s and 2000s was just about cute little gay marriage issues with only polite language used about gay people, then... I would encourage you to go open a history book before you talk more on this subject.
#truthbombOFLOVE
.

Trust me I know these vile things have been said for a very long time. I spent 6 years not allowed by my brother in law to be alone in the same with room my nephews after I came out. because of course we are all like that. I still hear it. But now they are a lot more open about it. Mainstream candidates and new stations are openly talking about it a lot more then did a couple decades ago. (With the exception of the 80s when the Anti Gay nuts jobs were every where because of the Aids Pandemic.)

I know it is not a new thing. But maybe it is the rise of social media or what ever. But it is a heck of a lot more out there and open now it seems then it ever was.

[babyblob]

I get that. But I think we have to recognize the importance and necessity of visibility as a way to combat what's happening. it's the only way forward. Pete's done pretty well describing and promoting the administration, and its plans, in hostile territory like I said. I think he'd have a solid, if moderate platform. Nowhere near what I'd personally want, but I have to recognize that my personal wants in politics aren't anywhere close to majority status.

Then that platform is what people need to talk about with him running. it should be "Here is what he has done with working in the Biden Administration and here is what he wants to do. Oh he is also gay." Not "He is gay get him out there. Oh and here is what he has done and what he wants to do but that isnt really a huge deal. Did I mention hes gay?"

I wouldnt have an issue with Pete being talked about to run if the first thing was said even 1/4th as much as the 2nd.

If he runs and I agree with his views and his plans I will support him over the other Dems running if not I will support another Dem candidate. If he gets the nomination and is the guy I will support him. But its not going to be because he is a gay man running for office. it is going to be because he is a man whose views I agree with that happens to be gay.

[Tendrin]

Then that platform is what people need to talk about with him running. it should be "Here is what he has done with working in the Biden Administration and here is what he wants to do. Oh he is also gay." Not "He is gay get him out there. Oh and here is what he has done and what he wants to do but that isnt really a huge deal. Did I mention hes gay?"

I wouldnt have an issue with Pete being talked about to run if the first thing was said even 1 4th as much as the 2nd.

It's a bit early to have a platform, but his last one wasn't too bad -- but you can't be surprised that people are considering the benefits of putting a gay veteran at a moment when social liberalism is under fascist assault. The story that tells about what's been done, what's accomplished, and what's under threat is important. As much as I hate to say it, policy matters WAY less than a lot of us want to think. The story picking Pete tells will be more influential to a lot of people than his policies.

[babyblob]

It's a bit early to have a platform, but his last one wasn't too bad.

I agree. I dont know as much about him as I would like because he was bounced early on and I focused on others.

And it is a bit early because he has not even said if he is running again or even thinking of running yet. So it is all a moot point right now.

[Kieran_Frost]

My big issue when I hear the talk about Pete running (And I dont even think he said so far if he is even thinking about it) isnt that I think he will Lose (I do but that is not my main issue)

It is when I hear the talk 90 percent of the time it is not "Well Pete has a plan for this, he wants to do this, this is how he will try and fix that." it is "He is gay he needs to be out there. it is time. All the anti LTGBQ+ people out there We have to get Pete out there."

It would be a gimmick candidate for people. The only reason a lot of people want him out there to run is that he is gay and it will be a "In your face." moment. When there is a serious candidate that is gay I want it to be based on what he can do. I dont want him to get the nod because he is gay. And that is the huge thing that bothers me about the Pete talk.

Not because of his plans or what he can do. But because of his sexual orientation. And that is not right.

If you think he'd only be a gimmick, I would encourage you to research about him more, he's very inspirational; and far more than that. He won Iowa in the Primary. FACT! It's just Sander's group [intentionally] torpedoed his win with lies saying Sanders won, only admitting the truth once it killed off Pete's momentum that an Iowa win would have given him. He's eloquent, he preaches love, TOLERANCE for those we don't agree with. His town hall discussions were beautiful. He's a war vet, he's avoided the (necessary, sadly) corruption to rise up the ladder, because he colossally jumped from Major to Secretary. That's a lot of wading through sh*t he avoided, which darkens the soul, and makes people jaded. He avoid that. Which is SO exciting.

If you think Secretary Pete would have an 'in your face' moment... that says to me, you know nothing about how he performs in discussions, debates and life in general. Think more Mister Rogers, less RuPaul

Trust me I know these vile things have been said for a very long time. I spent 6 years not allowed by my brother in law to be alone in the same with room my nephews after I came out. because of course we are all like that. I still hear it. But now they are a lot more open about it.

I know it is not a new thing. But maybe it is the rise of social media or what ever. But it is a heck of a lot more out there and open now it seems then it ever was.

Tough love time: You keep saying 'you know' and then you write this: Mainstream candidates and new stations are openly talking about it a lot more then did a couple decades ago.

This, to me, is the opposite of 'oh trust, I know'. If you think this is new, if you think it's more open than it used to be, if you think it's crueler language than has been used FOR DECADES... then I say: please, PLEASE stop talking about this till you go do some real research. It's not new. Not more open. Not more public. The only newness... is now we have people outraged about it and offering rebuttles, where as back in the day it was the only view being expressed by mainstream press.

[Tendrin]

If you think he'd only be a gimmick, I would encourage you to research about him more, he's very inspirational; and far more than that. He won Iowa in the Primary. FACT! It's just Sander's group [intentionally] torpedoed his win with lies saying Sanders won, only admitting the truth once it killed off Pete's momentum that an Iowa win would have given him. He's eloquent, he preaches love, TOLERANCE for those we don't agree with. His town hall discussions were beautiful. He's a war vet, he's avoided the (necessary, sadly) corruption to rise up the ladder, because he colossally jumped from Major to Secretary. That's a lot of wading through sh*t he avoided, which darkens the soul, and makes people jaded. He avoid that. Which is SO exciting.

If you think Secretary Pete would have an 'in your face' moment... that says to me, you know nothing about how he performs in discussions, debates and life in general. Think more Mister Rogers, less RuPaul

My big concern with Pete is the way he let himself get worked by the police when he was Mayor of South Bend. The presidency is even worse in the same way and I'm not sure if he can handle that part of the job based on what happened with the South Bend police chief and such.

[babyblob]

It's a bit early to have a platform, but his last one wasn't too bad -- but you can't be surprised that people are considering the benefits of putting a gay veteran at a moment when social liberalism is under fascist assault. The story that tells about what's been done, what's accomplished, and what's under threat is important. As much as I hate to say it, policy matters WAY less than a lot of us want to think. The story picking Pete tells will be more influential to a lot of people than his policies.

The story is a big part of it I agree. But when you are talking about fighting fascists, and how important it is to win 2024 to keep back sliding even more and to have more taken away ignoring the fact that right now a gay man as the candidate is most likely not going to win and not going to be the guy to do that. Not in our current climate. A story is great if he can win. I dont think he can and I dont want the story to go "We showed them having a gay candidate. But Trump or Desantis won." I dont want 4 more years of god awful messes because we want a feel good story.

That is all I am saying.

[babyblob]

If you think he'd only be a gimmick, I would encourage you to research about him more, he's very inspirational; and far more than that. He won Iowa in the Primary. FACT! It's just Sander's group [intentionally] torpedoed his win with lies saying Sanders won, only admitting the truth once it killed off Pete's momentum that an Iowa win would have given him. He's eloquent, he preaches love, TOLERANCE for those we don't agree with. His town hall discussions were beautiful. He's a war vet, he's avoided the (necessary, sadly) corruption to rise up the ladder, because he colossally jumped from Major to Secretary. That's a lot of wading through sh*t he avoided, which darkens the soul, and makes people jaded. He avoid that. Which is SO exciting.

If you think Secretary Pete would have an 'in your face' moment... that says to me, you know nothing about how he performs in discussions, debates and life in general. Think more Mister Rogers, less RuPaul

I am not saying He will run like that. But that is how he will be treated. And that is how the press will treat him in a 2024 election.

[babyblob]

I am not saying he shouldnt run because he is gay. I am saying that the talk of him being gay and really not much else right now is what bothers me. And I dont think he can win in 2024 because of the fact he is gay. it shouldnt be an issue but it is. Even his supporters who claim him not being gay is an issue go out of their way to point that he is gay first thing. and say

"Him being gay is not a good reason not to vote for him."

While at the same time saying

"Him being gay is a huge reason to vote for him."

[Kieran_Frost]

My big concern with Pete is the way he let himself get worked by the police when he was Mayor of South Bend. The presidency is even worse in the same way and I'm not sure if he can handle that part of the job based on what happened with the South Bend police chief and such.

Very true, but I see no evidence he didn't learn from that mistake, as by the end of it, he was handling it a lot better. I would hope he would be far more capable to handle that situation again now he's grown, matured and experienced more as a member of cabinet, over... just a mayor. He was still quite green then. As skeletons in the closet go... it's a really minor one.

I am not saying He will run like that. But that is how he will be treated. And that is how the press will treat him in a 2024 election.

Who is treating him that way? You seem to be the only one pushing this narrative, and so far you have demonstrated to know nothing about him.

I am not saying he shouldnt run because he is gay. I am saying that the talk of him being gay and really not much else right now is what bothers me. And I dont think he can win in 2024 because of the fact he is gay. it shouldnt be an issue but it is.

I think he can win in 2024 DESPITE the fact he's gay. Not because he's gay. I understand how America is, but I think he'd have a real shot to bring true change, in the best possible way.

Even his supporters who claim him not being gay is an issue go out of their way to point that he is gay first thing.

Actually I mentioned him first in this thread, and I didn't mention he was gay. You know who brought it up first... YOU!