Danny Bateman
Donor
He talked about it during his 2020 campaign. Being a bridge to a new generation of leadership, that is. Then he just kind of… decided not to follow through on it.
There’s definitely room to blame him for his own
hubris.
Media Bias
- Thread starter Archy1221
- Start date
There’s definitely room to blame him for his own
hubris.
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
He could not let it go. Even at the very end. It took a heavy-handed power play by his closest colleagues, and I don't think they had another week to spare.
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
Easy to say in hindsight, but can you imagine the field day the GOP would have if the Dems had two or three of their own actively challenging and undermining their own incumbent President, a guy who refuses to go quietly and publicly fights his own party over his own legacy rather than serving as President.
What could "The Dems" actually do? The more influential party members could have worked behind the scenes to convince a Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro or possibly Kamala Harris that against all previous protocol they would not be punished by the DNC if they launched a primary challenge, and that the high end donors required could be assured they stood a chance in an open primary. But it's hard to imagine those conversations in say, Fall of 2023 when the only primary challengers were Marianne Williamson, RFK Jr. and some guys named Jason Palmer and Dean Philips. The Dems had been encouraged by the midterms and at that primary inflection point, Joe was relatively coherent and feisty.
It only worked if Biden willingly stepped down. Up till the end, this board leaned towards Joe staying in and considered changing horses madness. I honestly think if Biden had stepped down one month earlier, the Democrats could have thrown together a flash primary like they do in Europe, although it would have been comprised entirely of Biden delegates with no public re-voting. A non-Kamala option might have fared better or won. Who knows? Any Not Trump candidate probably started with 45% and just needed to add the extra 6%.
RedDenver
Active member
This constant fear of what the GOP will say or do is part of why the Dems keep losing. The Dems need to run on a clear vision of what they will accomplish instead of running scared of the GOP.
The bolded is another reason the Dems keep losing. The stupidity of always backing the incumbent instead of backing the best candidate. The primaries are a chance to find out what their own voters think of the candidates instead of trying to game the system to get who the party elites want. Which is why I keep repeating that the Dems need to run a full primary every single cycle. The Dems would have quickly learned that both Biden was not a good candidate anymore and that Kamala Harris was not a good candidate to replace him.
I strongly disagree since Biden DID step done, but it was too late. I was leaning towards Joe at the very end because I thought it was more likely that Kamala would lose, and addle-minded Biden is still better than Trump. But I wanted the Dems to run a primary from the beginning. Once the Dems nominated Biden without a primary, it was too late.
Born N Bled Red
Active member
I get your sentiment and the thought behind it. The fact is though, I've never seen a true primary when the sitting president is up for re-election. Think like Fox news for a moment. What talking points would that have garnered about the democrats? Maybe it might have worked out, but it would have done just as much harm as good. IMO
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Yes. This is a problem within our political system. It's not just party specific. What primaries did Trump go through?
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
That's not a uniquely Democrat trait. I'm hard pressed to think of an American presidential election where either the Republicans or Democrats seriiously challenged their incumbent in an open primary. That includes hugely disliked second term candidates like Trump and Nixon and seemingly vulnerable candidates like Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter.
Carter would be the closest, and that required the most famous and popular Democratic challenger possible when Ted Kennedy stepped into the 1980 election against an incumbent who was highly compromised by the economy and the hostage crisis. Kennedy lasted into the Convention, but had lost the popular primary vote by a few million. Carter prevailed, paving the way for a total a$$-kicking from Republicans in November. Likely would have happened either way. Not sure what could be learned from that episode.
Well then you don't disagree. Biden stepping down too late is the basis for most of these posts.
JJ Husker
Donor
This whole discussion is maybe another example of why we need another Constitutional amendment further limiting terms for everyone. President one 4 year term, senators and reps 6 years, supreme court justices, IDK, 10 or 12 years. And more restrictive age limits while we’re at it. Once you turn 68 or 70, that should get you sent home. I mean s#!t, I’m old but even I am tired of these way too old f#&%s sticking around beyond senility.
I can’t recall a person or time in the recent past where this would have adversely affected the governing of our nation. Generally none of them are any good to begin with. Surely we wouldn’t miss them with higher and quicker turnover. It shouldn’t be a gravy train they can abuse and ride to dementia. Could help solve many problems if they were focused on getting the job done and getting out instead of trying to hold onto power.
I can’t recall a person or time in the recent past where this would have adversely affected the governing of our nation. Generally none of them are any good to begin with. Surely we wouldn’t miss them with higher and quicker turnover. It shouldn’t be a gravy train they can abuse and ride to dementia. Could help solve many problems if they were focused on getting the job done and getting out instead of trying to hold onto power.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
I disagree with this statement:
First, Biden stepped down and it didn't work. And second, it could have worked even without Biden stepping down.
RedDenver
Active member
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
Listen, you, me and pretty much everyone would have loved an earlier choice of better options. Hey, the Republicans had an OPEN primary, and look how inevitably that turned out.
My earlier post simply asked you to step out of this moment and the luxury of 20/20 hindsight and imagine yourself back in the early fall of 2023. Imagine legitimate Democrat Presidential candidates challenging a resistant Joe Biden to the utter delight of the GOP. And where do you think those Democrat challengers would come from? The system is f#&%ed up, but it's f#&%ed up for a reason. Presidential campaigns are extraordinarily expensive and unless you're a maverick with grassroots support and little chance of winning, you would be entering a bloodbath of fundraising and backstabbing. While I'd love Democrats to be the exciting, risk-taking outliers, abandoning your incumbent has a near 0% success rate.
The Fall of 2023 consensus was that anything designed to hurt Joe Biden would elect Donald Trump. That only changed in the Summer of 2024 when Biden stepped down. Too late.
Only thing left to debate is whether an earlier and different Dem candidate would have carried the electoral college.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove
Well-known member
The President is honestly just massively retarded.
Dr. Strangelove
Well-known member
An employee writing an Op-Ed isn't a "conspiracy". It's political spin. Welcome to politics. I understand the relationship between conservatism and victim hood, but this is kind of weak. I can find dozens of op-eds from those same websites that are critical of Biden/Pro-Trump.
But hey, if you're really worried about the relationship between the media and politicians, maybe this will interest you?
But hey, if you're really worried about the relationship between the media and politicians, maybe this will interest you?