Categories
Options
73% of Americans say Biden shouldn’t run again – politicalbetting.com
73% of Americans say Biden shouldn’t run again – politicalbetting.com
The big news in US politics over the past week has been the announcement by Joe Biden that he wants to seek a second term. If he was nominated and won he would be 86 years old at the end of his term. This is very much against public opinion in the US where voters across the board are opposed to such a move.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The GOP race... I dunno... I don't think early polling is very predictive and the media really want to have a race. And usually primaries against an incumbent spit out a relative moderate. So I would say that one is far from over.
https://morningconsult.com/governor-rankings/
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3811233-here-are-americas-most-popular-and-least-popular-governors/
Maybe the two parties need a primary primary to decide a candidate to take on the has been for the party nomination.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pregnant-gmp-officer-who-begged-26807119
The problem the Democrats and the Republicans have is they are wedded to past successes. Trump won, Biden beat Trump so the only one the Republican think can win is Trump and the only one the Democrats think can beat Trump is Biden so both sides are forced to stick with the proven choice.
I'm quite convinced both parties have plenty of people who could be President and it doesn't stop at DeSantis or Harris. Indeed, past experience shows the primary process has a way of turning an also-ran into a contender - it's a punishing process which weeds out the no-hopers and generally brings through the most likely contenders (though not always).
The obvious ways a Trump-Biden contest doesn't happen are either a) a health issue for one or both or b) Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination and runs as an Independent against DeSantis and presumably Biden.
I'm trying to think of the last time a sitting President was opposed by a former President (presumably Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 who ran as a Progressive and before that Grover Cleveland?) - it doesn't happen often and that might be another reason for the inertia.
If Trump loses again, that will presumably be the end of him and Biden cannot serve a third term so the 2028 election would have two newer and presumably much younger candidates (DeSantis would be a sprightly 52 and Pete Buttigieg a slightly sprightlier 49).
That is why he remains favourite for the Democratic nomination again if the Republicans nominate Trump again as currently looks likely
If he gets the nomination in 2024 and goes on to lose then I don't see why he wouldn't be able to repeat the same trick in 2028.
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1652956224378347521?s=20
The Democrats from a gubernatorial perspective don't look so well off - to be fair, both Carter and Clinton were Democrat Governors but Obama wasn't.
I agree on the absence of policy but I’m of the view that he is simply keeping his powder dry (to avoid Sunak nicking his policies). Would a good Labour manifesto change your mind?
I ask partly because I’m trying to work out what to do myself. I’m in a firm Labour constituency so it’s not that important, but I’m wavering between Labour and Green atm.
Well now it looks like they are doing. And we’ll no doubt quickly see why they didn’t do so earlier, as the irresistible forces of nimbyism let fly.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
In short, I have no idea!
I have this issue where my mind visualises everything I read/hear.
My view is that the (current) age of populism has peaked and Democrats/Independents at large are now too wise to his potential path to allow him through again.
He is helped by the fact the alternatives are much worse.
This isn’t the first instance for the Sunaks.
I think the GOP base are mad enough to nominate him, I think they’re screwed for the general election if they do, however.
I have no idea why that price is still available, but the chances of death in the next 16 months aren't that high.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
In the US though the hard ideological currents that underpin the culture wars seem to be alive and well though, on both right and left. There’s still a chance Trump could ride on these for a while.
He hasn't, and is running again, and that's pretty well that.
The Democrats have some very good potential candidates, but none of the really good ones have been round long enough to have the public following for a primary challenge in these circumstances.
If Biden weren't running, it would be a different matter.
While watching the Trump tape ?
I was screaming my safe word for days.
The good results for the Democrats in 2022 should be compared to the good Republican results, down-ballot, in 2020. Unlike most incoming Presidents, Biden had no coat-tails. That points to an electorate that just isn’t interested in how good or bad the candidates are. They just vote for their own sons of bitches.
That leaves little margin of error. I’d only make Biden a slight favourite to beat Trump.
But there is no chance of the base putting them forwards, so it’s a fantasy.
Pence and Haley are perhaps the ones to take a closer look at to assess their chances, Haley seems to be popular but I would need to look into her politics a bit more to be convinced she would be able to step up if Trump/DeSantis faltered.
And where have I said that the PM has to be held to a lower standard?
And for anyone who thinks the rules over declarations are 'easy', remember Starmer and many others have got in trouble over the gift declartions in the past, over multiple breaches:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/04/keir-starmer-found-to-have-breached-mps-code-of-conduct-over-register-of-interests
This is not a dig at Starmer: Mat Hancock and Jess Phillips are amongst several people under investigation for suspected breaches of various declaration rules; and Phillips has been reprimanded before.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jess-phillips-investigated-declarations-interests-b2327521.html
So unless you think all of these people, from many parties, are crooks or fools (*), then it might suggest that there's some difficulty in the registration process and what needs registering.
(*) Which might be reasonable
It's not that the electorate or the politicians they elected were "wrong", and their critics have now been vindicated; it's that voters want solutions to the issues they're raise that they feel traditional politicians have ignored. Not just rhetoric.
And I disagree about the number of edge cases. Most of the cases we see reported late or not at all are bloody obvious, indicating the issue is not confusion but entitlement - why should I have to do this?
I don't believe MPs should be de facto regarded as up to no good, but it's better for them to be careful and over declare than careless and under declare.
I have little real feeling for American politics.
Also, I see Trump has now switched the "Crooked" moniker to "Crooked Joe Biden". There's talk Hunter B may do a plea deal on a few charges which may be the smart deal to do now but there's a question as to where that then leads.
It's like election rules - are some complex? Sure. So complex parties with professional staff cannot figure it out and ensure candidates and agents know the rules? No.
And whilst you haven't said PMs should be held to a lower standard I would argue you are balancing too much on how its complex or a hassle for the individual and not enough on the potential seriousness if they get something wrong and thus why it is made detailed and to a degree invasive in the first place.
In the long run it is to their benefit to be so exposed.
I watched the Ch4 programmes last night. A little disappointing. The Harry Enfield one needed translating for me, as I knew bugger all about all the Princes and who was meant to be who. My wife, born in Co Cork, who's more IRA than royalist, helped me a little. "That's meant to be Sophie," she said.
"Who's she?"
I recognised Princess Anne - but that was the only one.
Frankie Boyle wasn't in his element. William the Conquerer? He wasn't a nice man. There's a shock. He wasn't very English either. Nor was Richard III. And Henry VIII was nothing to write home about. So what? I don't claim to be a historian, but wasn't James I or VI (of Scotland) who he didn't mention was probably the worst of all. An embezzler so famous, the courtiers he brought with him from Scotland were made famous in a nursery rhyme. According to Wiki ... "The most likely origin has it describing the arrival of King James 1st (in his velvet gown) at the English Court together with various impoverished Scottish nobility."
'Hark, hark. the dogs do bark, the beggars are coming to town.
Some in rags, and some in jags, and some in a velvet gown.'
It would make the today's SNP look like amateurs.
If that is the best that the Tories can muster, then I think Starmer fairly impeccable in terms of personal integrity compared to the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet.
It's his policies that I don't like, rather than his character.
Yes, partners should be off limits in the sense they are not involved in general political matters. But there are very good reasons the interests of a partner can be relevant, as the PMs case shows - it's a small thing, but needs to be known so no question of impropriety. It's not possible to assume any interests of a spouse are of no consequence.
Thats why a harder line is taken. They still have plenty of privacy, but top political figures have always had family in the public eye to some degree.
Those last five miles were pretty tough and I didn’t arrive until after nine o’clock, but it was worth the extra effort. Firstly, most of the extra walk was in the exact direction I wanted to go today (so only have twenty miles to walk today). Second, the place I’d booked was beautiful; an annexe to a farmhouse deep in the middle of nowhere, with sheep, geese, hens and a cockerel in the garden
https://abnb.me/w0vhk4Lxrzb
I had a very good sleep and I’m now on way to Quimper, the next stop on the pilgrimage. I’ve just reached quarter of the way there, which means I’ve now walked just over 200 miles in eight days and two and a half hours
I’m celebrating that landmark with a beer!
The Labour group among these is growing.
Wait and see, for example, if Labour intend that the % of the value of a house in Hartlepool paid in council tax is going to remain very substantially higher than the % of the value of a house paid in council tax in Hampstead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tro_Breizh
I’m not quite sure why I decided to do it though..
That's what happens most of the time and is reasonable. Most are not Paterson.
We have a new village probably starting shortly just north of Leicester (which doesn't have a formal greenbelt). I think it will be very popular:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/plans-creating-new-leicestershire-village-8392511#amp-readmore-target
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
https://twitter.com/oceaniaelects/status/1652979635213201408?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
How much of a townie are you?
What did he write about HYUFD ?
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
I’ve sat in public meetings where a number of angry people have demanded no more building in the area. Of any kind.
The LD, in particular, have a strong and established track record of using the promise of blocking any and all development for local political gain.
The other parties play the NIMBY card as well, of course.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain
99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.