Categories
Harris v Buttigieg – the WH2024 nomination race? – politicalbetting.com
Harris v Buttigieg – the WH2024 nomination race? – politicalbetting.com
Joe Biden is surely not going to want to put himself forward as candidate for 2024. He is heading for his 80s and that is showing and indeed it might not be that he is able to complete his first term.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nah - if it becomes a contested nomination she is going down in flames. A VP who doesn’t get the nomination without competing lacks all credibility
"Ms Price, headmistress of the prestigious, independent Benenden School in Kent, will tell her organisation's annual conference: "Adults comment that they feel today's teenagers are speaking a different language; that they can't say anything without being corrected or 'called out' by these PC children."
She says she is "weary of hearing the older generation say, 'you can't say anything any more'."
And she adds: "The fact is that times have changed, and we simply need to keep up with them."
So - the head of the head teachers association apparently no longer actually believes in free speech or indeed free enquiry any more, or indeed that childrens views should not actually even be challenged, according to this article by the BBC, which, appropriately enough, merely reports her views and does not even interrogate them.
Interesting to see Amol Rajan described as “ambitious” in the Mail’s article about the Palace documentary.
Someone doesn’t want him to get Laura K’s gig
If so, that does rather indicate the scale of Buttigieg’s challenge in getting the nomination.
*A couple were elected earlier, notably Madison and Monroe who were both the Secretary of State.
That BBC article is amusing. Complains that old people don't want to be told not to say things, and says they shouldn't things. Bloody old people, having different views. Don't they know diversity is unacceptable? Er...
Although I confess to being amused by @Leon ’s joke last night: “there’s gold in them/their hills”
It's one of the reasons that I think Biden's successor will be a Republican.
It was quite common from 1861 to 1912, when there were lots of one term Republican presidents. But they tended to go for governors or senators rather than cabinet ministers.
But even if we go for nominations, it's quite unusual. In 2016 it was a former cabinet minister, but long retired. In 2000 it was the Vice President. In 1968 it was a former Vice President versus the incumbent Vice President. In 1960 it was again the Vice President. In 1952 it was a Governor.
Another part of this is that Biden is more likely to run again if his administration is popular, and if it's unpopular, that will rub off on both his VP and his otherwise unknown Secretary of Transportation. It's also very hard to see Buttigieg or Harris running against him if he decides to stay, which will also handicap them if he drops out late in the cycle. So I'd be looking at people outside the administration - either popular Dem governors who can run against Washington, or somebody from the left of the party like Warren or AOC who can run against timidity.
Definitely in Christmas planning mode chez Cole.
And I do wonder whether the American presidential cycle isn't getting a bit too drawn out. This time last year we were wondering if Trump would actually admit that he'd lost.
Incidentally, I wonder how deluded he really is; does he, when he wakes, as we all do, in the wee small hours, admit to himself that Biden won?
It is hard to see a Democrat not called Biden winning the next election.
On your second point, I doubt it.
Similarly, if Biden quits you would have thought Buttigieg would be favourite for the promotion to Veep, especially given the age of the Secretary of State and the speaker and House Majority Leader. The only realistic alternative would be Osoff and would they really want a special election in Georgia?
Christian Wakeford, who was elected to Bury South in 2019, was reported to have called the former Tory MP for North Shropshire a "c---" during voting in Parliament earlier this month.
"But I do think it went to show the, I guess, the quantum of anger in the party and that's still high now. But the fact that after all that kind of marching up the top of the hill, not once was there gratitude from Owen, not once was there, kind of, apologies or repentance."
and the same MP in the Guardian:
Christian Wakeford, the Bury South MP, expressed anger that the plans appeared to have been changed since MPs voted in September to support the £12bn a year health and social care levy that will pay for the policy.
“If we’re changing the goalposts again, halfway through the match, it doesn’t sit comfortably with me or many colleagues,” he said, warning the government: “it shouldn’t be taken for granted that we’re just going to walk through the same lobby”.
I rather expect Paterson being a c*** was the issue instead.
Last election Trump was too far behind but the GOP has moved even further since then. GOP that uphold the law against their own party are being kicked out https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/01/gov-whitmer-replaces-gop-canvasser-who-certified-election-with-conservative-activist.html?outputType=amp
The Democrats are going to be robbed if they have what should be a narrow victory, their piss weak / non existant sanctions on the GOP post election mean they'll deserve it
"Think before you speak. Read before you think. This will give you something to think about that you didn't make up yourself - a wise move at any age, but most especially at seventeen, when you are in the greatest danger of coming to annoying conclusions."
Fran Lebowitz
AIUI, he can't pardon himself!
Both major parties seem in a pretty bad place at the moment, driven by factional infighting rather than looking at how best to improve the country.
Back in 1988, Vice President George HW Bush ran for the Republican nomination, and won only one of the first four Primaries, against two for Bob Dole and one for Pat Robertson. Indeed, 10 Primaries in at the end of February, Dole narrowly led Bush for delegates, with Robertson still hanging in there.
It was only on Super Tuesday - close to three months from the first Primary - that Bush basically swept the board and secured the nomination.
(As an aside, back in 1987 Trump ran a series of advertisements hinting that he was considering running for President. It's a shame he didn't win - and lose - then. It might have saved us all a whole bunch of trouble.)
I'd like to nominate 'it'.
You, ummm, don't seem to be following your own advice.
Surely they should be challenged and tested.
While I have been extremely critical of CRT on this board, I suspect there may well be elements of it that are not without merit.
When you come out and throw the whole of trangender and CRT in a single bucket, and say it must be 'fought and stopped' then aren't you behaving just as rashly?
1. If he ran against Harris, he'd be crucified by the progressive wing. Yes, he is gay but, given he is a white male, running against a black woman can only go one way in today's Democrat party, especially as Harris is the sitting VP and shows no signs of stepping down (nor does her career suggest she would anyway, especially when she is so close to the Presidency);
2. He is part of an unpopular administration that shows no signs of being able to pull out of its nosedive and where the newsflow looks grim (inflation rising, clear signs that a substantial part of the Hispanic vote is shifting, revolt in the burbs against CRT etc etc);
3. So far, he is being remembered as the guy who took time off for parental leave when the country was going through a logistics crisis. That alone is likely to sink him as Americans don't really do part-time Presidents (I'd also suggest that gives an indication he is counting himself out);
4. 2024 is three years away so lots can happen but I really do not see anything on the Republican side that is likely to stop the momentum. For those who think Trump will self-implode and take the GOP down with him, look at his behaviour in Virginia and New Jersey - he kept quiet for the most part. The GOP seems to have found a working solution for swing states is to have presentable candidates who are acceptable to the burbs while Trump gets odd the base - the quid pro quo is those candidates don't slag off Trump and Trump gets to feel his GOTV efforts won the election.
More seriously, having the head of a Private Girls' school come out and say this (and be publicised) will probably have the opposite effect to what she intended.
Interestingly, Ian Hislop in a recent discussion of the late Robert Maxwell, opined that these days Maxwell would not sue for libel but would instead seek injunctions on privacy grounds, so that is yet another encroachment on our non-existent right to free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1K3XjuEbs
To harp on Biden's age may well bear on betting possibilities, for this is indeed a site for bettors.
But Biden is very busy trying to unravel some of Trump's many perverse acts and lacunae. And actually some of us think he is sometimes bringing it off.
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/opinion/columnists/david-brooks-joe-biden-is-succeeding/article_0f5adc10-4981-11ec-926d-0b5b4184eb38.html
Is this the work of an ambitious man? When the poor cried, Caesar cried too. Ambition shouldn’t be so soft. Yet Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man. You all saw that on the Lupercal feast day I offered him a king’s crown three times, and he refused it three times. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious.
Now it might be different when she's the VP running for nomination, but that would be because she's the VP, not because she's a black woman.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/
Secondly, even if it was the most rabidly transrights speech in existence (and I suspect it wasn't, because said Head Mistress knows she needs to sell hundreds of 60k/year places a year), it probably still wouldn't resonate in the Red Wall. Because this isn't a politician. It's the head mistress of a school which Red Wall voters have never heard of.
This is why I think if Biden stands down in good time, keep an eye out for another black woman who could take on Kamala - particularly Stacey Abrams who could easily be the only Dem success story in 2022 if the Georgia Trumpists decide to punish their GOP incumbent for being insufficiently helpful with the attempted coup.
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
https://twitter.com/patmcfaddenmp/status/1462699444781080578
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1461474536440872971
Surely, they'll find their own champion? Perhaps Ms Warren will run again (unincumbered by a fight with Sanders for the soul of the Left). Or maybe Ms AOC will choose to pitch in.
But... if there's one thing that 2020 told us, it's that the voters in the Democratic primaries are a long, long way to the Right of the Progressive Wing.
And that really matters in the Democratic Primary, because this isn't an FPTP system, where a Left wing candidate could amass a big block of delegates by winning primaries with 30-35% of the vote. Instead, they end up with 30-35% of the delegates.
Have you read the transcript of the speech? Or just the edited highlights from a 22 year old BBC reporter who just grabbed the tastiest lines to wrap a story around
You might disagree with the message, but it's in no way an attack on free speech.
Harris has a lack of support from the progressive wing of the Democrats - based on her time as a prosecutor. A number of African Americans are not fans either.
2x nieces at Benenden I can confirm that if typical, they are all very balanced and thoughtful about any particular current affairs debate. Have not engaged them on trans rights, that said, but I would welcome their opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/21/tory-mps-warn-boris-johnson-not-to-take-support-for-granted-over-social-care-cap
It will be v clear by 2023/4 that Harris would lose to Trump. Dems have to roll the dice.
In any event, given her comments, I doubt it will be much different in tone. It would be interesting to hear whether she thinks the opposite side of the coin applies and maybe suggest to the privileged young girls that form her base that maybe they ought to be not self-righteous and condemning of views that do not match their own. Or is that another privilege of being rich these days?
The only discussions I can remember here about Rajan have been how one might say that his is more a Radio 5 Live voice than a R4 voice and then also, having listened to him on the Today Prog, how he is excellent in that role.
Edit: although that last could just be me.
Mr. Boy, I'm not a baby boomer, but I certainly don't subscribe to the nonsense of woke and 'critical thinking', or the race-baiting Marxism of BLM.
Having listened to him on the media show, I thought he might not transfer well to politics, but I was wrong. And he's a great deal smarter than (say) Justin Webb.
I think truth does matter.
But look, if you want we can have a small wager and we can get YouGov to sample 1,000 representative voters in Red Wall constituencies. Loser pays for the poll.
I note there was next to no boos to the Toon players taking the knee at the weekend. Nobody cares.
Levelling up...
* And from Benenden, they are very definitely all 'young ladies'