Prediction: Bye, Bye, Biden

[yellowstone123]

Someone has repeatedly put it out there, and I doubt it was for no reason.

From a 2019 Politico story:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/1 ... erm-082129

If true, then it means the Executive Branch will keep things quiet, make secret plans, so having many challengers trying to become the party nominee for president doesn't happen. They will transfer all the funds raised to reelect President Joe Biden to Vice-President Kamala Harris and have a virtual roll call prior to the "Democratic" Convention. Well, if that's how the 2024 Democratic Party rolls today then that how they roll but some may challenge it.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks, Bret! So we see how he could suggest one term only without being held to a promise.

[honorentheos]

Where I remain frustrated is in the process that got us here. The lack of a primary process due to Biden being an incumbent president is where I feel the DNC and those around Biden failed the country. We need more transparency than we had.

Are you saying both parties should have a full primary every 4 years? I don't ever remember a serious primary season for the incumbent party.

Harris's nomination doesn't bother me from a "does she deserve to be there" perspective because Biden voters implicitly voted for her as VP. Especially given Joe's age, one has to think people voted for him knowing it was possible Harris would have to take over at some point.

Hey Schmo,

Primaries are a mixed bag, in my opinion. On the one hand they promote democratic engagement. But we also did not always have primaries nor are they required by the Constitution. They exist in large measure to address problems in past elections rather than because they are a proven method. Prior to the rise of Presidential Primaries following the 1968 fiasco they were much more controlled by party leadership while they're seen as producing more extreme, less moderate candidates as few people participate in primary elections so the most motivated, usually extreme, end up with an outsized influence.

So I'm not saying we should have a primary every 4 years even though we do and when there is an incumbent they usually run unopposed rather than there not being one. What I'm saying is transparency in the primary process seems to matter as to the results.

In 2016, the Clinton-Sanders face off among the Democrats has been criticized for the DNC being partial towards Clinton. This wasn't just true of her match-up with Sanders, though. It was true early on when the party leadership largely made the case it was Hillary's turn so serious challenges were discouraged including by then VP Joe Biden. I'm not a Bernie guy and don't like seeing him on the Democrat party ticket, to be honest, but I think how things worked out in 2020 was far better. Sanders led the pool of moderate hopefuls up to the point it became clear those who did not want a socialist populist for President needed to rally behind a front runner of their own. When Biden won South Carolina heading into Super Tuesday and became the person representing that wing of the party as the majority of other contenders dropped out to back him he organically became the candidate in a way folks may not have preferred but couldn't really argue against as far as the process went. That process was messy which I think is probably good in that sense, and it resulted in a strong candidate.

Ironically, it was that same process that gave rise to the idea of Biden as a bridge to the next generation of leaders which is a phrase he would use while courting the Buttigieg, Harris, and Klobuchar supporters. The idea he would only serve one term and make way for a younger candidate to follow was born out of this even if he was openly saying he would still likely run so long as his health allowed.

I think both parties have difficult times managing the dynamic that is central to democratic self-representation where people's voices need heard. But those people aren't the best judges of every matter that needs considered when governing.

Speculation time: I think Obama likely played a role in Biden not running in 2016 while he also was dealing with the death of Beau. He, Biden, has spoken of having felt at the time he had wanted to pass the torch to Beau's generation and had seen Beau as part of that leadership change before his cancer diagnosis. So when Trump beat Clinton I think Biden had a bit of a chip on his shoulder over it, and his run in 2020 was due to his believing he was the one that could have stopped Trump back in 2016 had he not been talked into retiring. So when he made his comeback in the 2020 primaries, won the general election and then lead the Democrats in resisting the predicted Red Wave in 2022 it seems to me he had every reason to believe anyone telling him he may want to consider stepping back was using that same play that led to Trump winning in 2016. He couldn't see it himself whether or not he maybe SHOULD pass the torch which I get. In this case, I think a transparent primary with debates and other venues for the President to be in front of people would have either solidified his support or, as ended up happening, show maybe it was time to take a victory lap and retire. Or not if that were the case.

[honorentheos]

From a 2019 Politico story:



https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/1 ... erm-082129

If true, then it means the Executive Branch will keep things quiet, make secret plans, so having many challengers trying to become the party nominee for president doesn't happen. They will transfer all the funds raised to reelect President Joe Biden to Vice-President Kamala Harris and have a virtual roll call prior to the "Democratic" Convention. Well, if that's how the 2024 Democratic Party rolls today then that how they roll but some may challenge it.

They'll lose.

[honorentheos]

Someone has repeatedly put it out there, and I doubt it was for no reason.

From a 2019 Politico story:

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.

While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/1 ... erm-082129

Thanks for posting this, Bret. I also think statements like in the quote below contributed to this which is fine. I don't think the idea he promised to step down is valid both because it would have made him a lame duck president day one as well as he being a bit feisty over being passed over for Clinton in 2016 only for Trump to end up winning (in my opinion), but it's not surprising folks felt this was so.

Here's a CNN article from 2020 after the other, younger Democratic primary hopefuls dropped out to endorse him against Sanders:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/09/politics ... index.html

Former Vice President Joe Biden called himself a “bridge” to future Democratic leaders Monday night as he campaigned with Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

“Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” Biden said. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”

The nod to three people expected to be considered for the vice presidential nomination was the most direct the 77-year-old former vice president has been about how he views his role within the party.

He has long pledged to return the nation to pre-President Donald Trump normalcy. But he and his aides have declined to address whether, if elected, he would run for a second term in 2024. He has said only that he would not run again if he were in poor health.

In town halls and other events, Biden has repeatedly been asked by voters who he would choose as his running mate. He’s often said he would seek someone who is “simpatico” on policy issues.

His comment comes as the generation of Democrats he outlasted in the party’s presidential primary broadly endorse him against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

A week ago in Texas, Biden said that another ex-rival, 38-year-old former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, reminded him of his deceased son, Beau Biden, and that if the race had occurred six years later, Biden would have been the one endorsing Buttigieg.

[honorentheos]

Are you saying both parties should have a full primary every 4 years? I don't ever remember a serious primary season for the incumbent party.

Harris's nomination doesn't bother me from a "does she deserve to be there" perspective because Biden voters implicitly voted for her as VP. Especially given Joe's age, one has to think people voted for him knowing it was possible Harris would have to take over at some point.

Not to answer for honor by here is my two cents. I don't necessarily believe they need a full primary every 4 years per se. But Biden's age and the desire from a whole host of the party to see him only serve one term and make way for younger blood is not some new narrative that only popped up after his debate. Party leadership didn't entertain that notion at the time and instead waited to give any push back until well after the primary and it was too late to actually let the people speak for themselves. Had they had the hard conversation early who knows how things might have gone. Sure we might have had the exact same result but at least it would have been open and transparent. You're right that it rarely happens but it isn't without precedent.


As far as supporting the ticket = being okay with Harris as President... I'm not sure that holds up under much scrutiny. Given the lack of options in primary and that when polled something like ~40% of the population can't name the VP I can definitely understand why voters may feel this was "forced" on them.

Personally I support Harris and I think she'll make a fine President from what I've seen but that doesn't change the fact that democratic leadership bungled this whole process.

Edit: that isn't to remove Biden's hubris in this, just that ultimately I believe the party as a collective has to be the one to make the call.

Hey Xeno -

I'm happy to have you speak for me. Overall I agree with your thoughts and why transparency here would have been better than what happened.

[Xenophon]

I guess I really don’t understand politics, but isn’t the president considered the leader of his party?

A lot of your other thoughts have been touched on but I didn't want this one to slip by. I think Presidents often serve as the defacto party head but that doesn't exist in a vacuum or with unending power. There have to be party mechanisms in place for providing leadership and vision when you don't control the office or when there isn't a clear contender for it. I like to imagine it more of a round-table setup where the President may sit in the prime seat but they can't be the only one at the table. Particularly if you're looking to govern instead of dictate it requires a coalition, even within one's own party, in order to get your agenda through. Leaders only have so much political will they can exercise and how much they start with larger depends on the people's reaction to their efforts.

Not to beat this dead horse but BIden did control his own destiny here but fumbled it mighlighty with the optics of the debate. Regardless of any deals or peoples hopes for him to run one-term I think the public had mostly come to grips with him running again (my own personal feelings fit with this, I didn't want him to run again but had accepted it) and all he had to do was finish strong, which he did not. I think there are strong arguments that the treatment of him wasn't fair on the topic but such is life, especially in politics.

There will be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on post election, regardless of if Harris (or whatever potential nominee) wins or loses. "How would Biden have fared?" "What if she had been picked during the primary?" "What if he had refused to debate?" And on and on. Due to the the limited number of presidential elections and the winner-take-all makeup, it lends itself to all the speculation that we can handle and then some.

[Kishkumen]

I think Joe Biden has had a remarkably successsful presidency. The main dampers on this come from MAGA heads and people who have specific policy demands that were not satisfied. I was enthusiastic to vote for him a second time, much more enthusiastic than the first. I think it is interesting how the entertainment world lined up behind this narrative that he is a big, selfless hero for stepping down.

He was bullied out. The gratitude from the people who were doing the bullying is kinda gross. It is remarkable that a president who had a wildly successful presidency should be hounded out of the nomination he won fairly by primary votes. I think it is all symptomatic of broken politics. I would love to see someone punch George Clooney in the face. Like anyone should give a crap what he thinks.

Today I find the late-night comedians just a little less funny. I knew they were propagandists before. Now it seems just a little too obvious. They went straight with the party line. You would think Pelosi and Obama had written their “please go, Joe” scripts for them. I really hate ham handed manipulation tactics. We see too much of this crap these days. I came out of the whole thing respecting a guy I never liked, Joe Scarborough, just a bit more. He at least did not always remain silent when his bosses were in message control mode.

Meanwhile, Nikki Haley kissed Don Donno’s ring, proving that her performance of moral backbone was just that. I get why people opt out of all of this nonsense. The ambitious are gross. Power and relevance over principles. I will oppose these types wherever possible.

[Some Schmo]

Edit: that isn't to remove Biden's hubris in this, just that ultimately I believe the party as a collective has to be the one to make the call.

Hey Xeno -

I'm happy to have you speak for me. Overall I agree with your thoughts and why transparency here would have been better than what happened.

That was good stuff, guys. You made some great points worth consideration.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I was miffed Joe was getting railroaded out the door, but man, that spectacular speech couple with the energy I’m seeing from the party made me reconsider my position, not that it matters since I only gave the DNP $50 and a vote. As far as how the DNC runs their own operation, well, whatever. I can only hope someone like Buttigieg gets a fair shot at the Presidency some day. I mean, barriers are being broken. We already had the first Atheist President in American history when the Right ironically elected Trump to the highest office, so who knows?

- Doc