Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
Yes, I can't imagine it would be anyone but Harris and, as you said, the optics of pushing out the first American female black VP would be very poor. You are right Harris is not that great and, more to the point, I get the impression she doesn't come across as having much in the way of a vision or ideas, more than she repeats what others have said.
Doesn't Trump running in 2024 mean Biden is far more likely to run as well?
He'd be 82 at the start of his second term, and 86 at the end of it. And it's known as quite a tough job. I just don't see it.
He's said he was a bridge, and I take him at his word on that.
It's also not obvious he'd have the best chance in 2024. This isn't actually a criticism as I think it was right for 2020 with hindsight - but he's a low energy person at a time people wanted a break from high energy, a throw back to the administration of a President with high retrospective approval ratings, and a somewhat "generic" Democrat in a country which is slightly more blue than red at the moment. That isn't necessarily the recipe for 2024 if Trump runs again - people may well be a bit bored of low energy, the economy may be at a sluggish phase and so on. The right offer might well be "something different and more exciting... but not THAT different and exciting".
He called himself a bridge and people are not persuaded that he is delusional....okay.
The older gentleman of the USA running for office has great merit.
Personally I have determined to run for my 23rd term as member for the Auchentennach Constituency in the elected Jacobite House of Lords. Total electorate 1
Jack W is 124 ....
The ongoing power of your mighty ARSE inspires us all, your grace.
We all come to PB for such insightful comments as yours.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
The older gentleman of the USA running for office has great merit.
Personally I have determined to run for my 23rd term as member for the Auchentennach Constituency in the elected Jacobite House of Lords. Total electorate 1
Jack W is 124 ....
The ongoing power of your mighty ARSE inspires us all, your grace.
We all come to PB for such insightful comments as yours.
Really? I had hoped it was my awesome punning that had lured you back...
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
There may be but if polling in late 2023 shows Harris would lose to say Pence or one of the Trumps but Buttigieg would beat them then Buttigieg would definitely challenge her for the nomination
Doesn't Trump running in 2024 mean Biden is far more likely to run as well?
He'd be 82 at the start of his second term, and 86 at the end of it. And it's known as quite a tough job. I just don't see it.
He's said he was a bridge, and I take him at his word on that.
It's also not obvious he'd have the best chance in 2024. This isn't actually a criticism as I think it was right for 2020 with hindsight - but he's a low energy person at a time people wanted a break from high energy, a throw back to the administration of a President with high retrospective approval ratings, and a somewhat "generic" Democrat in a country which is slightly more blue than red at the moment. That isn't necessarily the recipe for 2024 if Trump runs again - people may well be a bit bored of low energy, the economy may be at a sluggish phase and so on. The right offer might well be "something different and more exciting... but not THAT different and exciting".
I think he would be dead. Don't fancy his chances of completing his first term to be honest.
I think what it shows though is that this issue probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It does look as though, for now, the Republican establishment is lining up behind Trump. Whether that it is because they truly believe some of this stuff or because they know he still has the base of support in the Republican party and don't wan to go against him is a separate question.
On then to the vaccine and it seems for the stock market it's unalloyed good news.
Unlike some on here, I'm no epidemiologist so as far as the vaccine is concerned, will we need to take it every year or will immunity build up over time? The former might be a decent option fr those making the vaccine but the prospect of a single lifetime immunity would be truly impressive.
Let's administer the vaccine free of charge to all - rich or poor, it should make no difference. We've all been through a lot.
On then to the cultural consequences of a vaccine - I'm already hearing the siren voices saying everything will return to "normal" and that 2021 will be one big Party. I'm less convinced - the psychological trauma of 2020 will be with us for years to come and we shouldn't lose sight of the near 70,000 who have died, those whose health has been permanently damaged by the virus and those who have suffered through being confined.
Perhaps this experience will make us take our public and personal health a bit less for granted and it won't do any harm for us to make some changes rather than go back to January 2020 and try to forget everything that has happened.
It would be easy to forget but the independent public enquiry Boris promised must happen - there must be a proper accounting of decisions taken and not taken especially on care homes and if that means Ministers are sacked, so be it.
Nicholas Christakis's (Yale Prof of Natural Sciences) take on the Sam Harris podcast was that we shouldn't expect "normal" to resume until 2024. He was working on the basis of a vaccine taking until 2022 to roll-out (US centric, but even in the UK I guess this sort of timescale would be realistic), and then a couple of years for society to rebuild and overcome it's collective trauma.
The headline 90% figure for the Pfizer vaccine sounds too good to be true. Lets hope there's not a catch.
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
They guy's lucky not to have been called a useless idiot on his way out like some of them.
The night is but young... I'd not count it out yet.
Trump hates Esper due to his gross disloyalty in advising that going full Tianamen Square with black lives matter probably wasn't sensible. The abuse will come - give it five minutes.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
Yes, I can't imagine it would be anyone but Harris and, as you said, the optics of pushing out the first American female black VP would be very poor. You are right Harris is not that great and, more to the point, I get the impression she doesn't come across as having much in the way of a vision or ideas, more than she repeats what others have said.
Her period as AG of California is interesting. She was remarkably successful in improving the conviction rate, especially for drug cases. Heaven forfend but its possible she is less good on the vision thing (Obama style) but better at running things. That might well make a positive change.
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
The older gentleman of the USA running for office has great merit.
Personally I have determined to run for my 23rd term as member for the Auchentennach Constituency in the elected Jacobite House of Lords. Total electorate 1
Jack W is 124 ....
The ongoing power of your mighty ARSE inspires us all, your grace.
We all come to PB for such insightful comments as yours.
Really? I had hoped it was my awesome punning that had lured you back...
There may be some merit in your conclusion however Mrs Jack W intimated that she would approve my return if I might assure her of further funds for essential retail therapy. I have honoured the bargain and have had my posting rights returned.
Maybe the actual legal arguments are more compelling, but I don't see how saying it is more susceptible to fraud matters, even if it were true, to whether the votes should count, unless there is evidence fraud did take place in this election. Lots of rules might not be perfect but are still legal to use until replaced or shown to be faulty.
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
It is disgusting and incomprehensible.
Bit harsh...
Yes, given his other successes I would give Fermat the benefit of the doubt myself.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
Am I right in thinking the only cabinet ministers to go direct to the White House were Taft as Secretary of War and Hoover as Secretary of Commerce?
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
There may be but if polling in late 2023 shows Harris would lose to say Pence or one of the Trumps but Buttigieg would beat them then Buttigieg would definitely challenge her for the nomination
Plus Buttigieg would be the first openly homosexual President, just as symbolic as the first female minority President, especially given Obama has already been the first African American President and Harris has already been elected to be VP anyway
Some new functionality added to UK govt coronavirus data page.
One thing it shows clearly now is the impact of Drakeford's firebreak. He may still have been late doing it though.
Off to Conservative home for you...nobody can "clearly" say anything about the effect of it yet....that is one of the main criticisms, is you exit unable to tell for certain its impact.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
As someone else mentioned, there's a non-zero chance she'd be running as President seeking re-election, which would make her very tough to beat (Ford barely squeaked through against Reagan in 1976 but harder circumstances).
I'd say a Governor would be best placed if Biden's administration is somewhat unpopular. New broom appeal. The bench isn't massively strong there, but Newsom (California), Grisham (New Mexico) or Beshear (Kentucky) are possibilities. As mentioned on previous thread, Cuomo (New York) may be the man who jailed Trump by 2024.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
Am I right in thinking the only cabinet ministers to go direct to the White House were Taft as Secretary of War and Hoover as Secretary of Commerce?
Point of pedantry, the Vice President is a member of the cabinet.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I can't make my mind up about Cuomo. They guy's clearly got the ambition and the cojones to run for Prez, and even if some might say he'd be handicapped by being the Governor of ultra-librul New York, he's actually pretty moderate himself and has built up a huge amount of capital from his adroit handling of the Coronavirus here. But then on the other hand, for the same reason the Governorship of New York is his now to the day he dies if he so wishes, and I think he genuinely loves the job and loves the state. Also, he gets to crap on Bill de Blasio on a daily basis as Governor and it would look a bit un-Presidential if he carried on doing that from the White House.
Surely Harris will be in pole position come 2024 for the democrat nomination.
Exactly - unless she is disgraced somehow, it would be really hard for the Party not to go with her for two reasons - 1. First US female President 2. Quasi incumbent effect of already being in the White House.
Harris should be odds on favourite to be 2024 Presidential winner.
She will be the heir apparent if Biden doesn't seek re-election and the Democrats should be favourites to hold the White House next time.
Since the start of the 20th century only twice has a party lost the White House after just one term: Carter and Trump.
Starting at 60% democrat 40% republican would be as far as I could lean. Of the 60% maybe its split Biden 20% Harris 30% Others 10%?
Odds on feels way too short, but she may be value at the opening 7/2.
First term parties have held onto the Oval Office at the first time of asking 11/13 times since the start of the 20th century. That's 85% of the time. Drop down perhaps to 70% to be generous to the GOP.
Harris for nominee I'd estimate to be at least 75% chance. If Biden retires or worse it should be virtually 100% she'd hold the nomination, even if she doesn't she would be the presumptive favourite from the start and will get key backing as presumptive nominee. I suspect the likes of Buttigieg would rather be part of her team than run against her. I expect the nomination would be as much a lock for her as 2016 was for Hillary.
.7 * .75 = 52.5% chance (and I think I'm being conservative in both of those). Odds on favourite.
Good arguments but think you are overconfident on both. On the party side even with an 8% national poll lead the betting markets only gave the Democrats a 66% chance, those structural advantages are unlikely to disappear (even if they unwind a little), so for the Dems to be 75%+ they would probably need to be in for at least a similar lead in 4 years time. It seems unlikely that is the median poll lead.
Most historic administrations havent faced anything like that handicap to overcome which weakens the value of the 11/13 stat. When the markets open the Democrats wont be anything like your 1.4 guide price.
Harris % out of the Democrat win is much more subjective and you might be right on that, but I would be different.
He says that he didn't know her name. I suppose I could use Google to see if there has ever been a more pathetic excuse.
Well, there’s Cummings and his eye test.
The best one I ever heard though was a pseudoscholar called David Fitzgerald, who claimed he had written a book proving a loony fringe theory to be true. On having it pointed out to him that he had offered no proof whatsoever, he said that the evidence was in his original draft but he left it out because it made the book too long.
Yes, that's pretty good in a Queen of Hearts kind of way.
Fermat's Last Theorem says hello.
That's a great story but was he not ultimately vindicated after the modest gap of 350 years or so? Who knows, in 2370 they may conclude that Trump really did win.
Yes and no. The theory was proven correct, but the proof he used cannot have been the modern one, and may not have been a valid proof.
It is disgusting and incomprehensible.
Bit harsh...
Not a fan of modern theatre?
Clearly not! Way over my head.
It’s a quotation from Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia:
Septimus: carnal embrace is sexual Congress by the insertion of the male genital organ into the female genital organ, for purposes of procreation and pleasure. Fermat’s Last Theorem, by contrast, states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2.
Thomasina: Eurrghh!
Septimus: Nevertheless, that is the theorem.
Thomasina: it is disgusting and incomprehensible. Now, when I am grown to practice it myself I shall never be able to do it without thinking of you.
Russia claimed today that its controversial Covid-19 vaccine is 90 per cent effective - shortly after Pfizer sparked a wave of optimism around the world by giving the same figure for its own vaccine.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
Am I right in thinking the only cabinet ministers to go direct to the White House were Taft as Secretary of War and Hoover as Secretary of Commerce?
Point of pedantry, the Vice President is a member of the cabinet.
Good spot. I will then say, any unelected member of the cabinet?
Edit - and no clever dick remarks about Ford, please!
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
There may be but if polling in late 2023 shows Harris would lose to say Pence or one of the Trumps but Buttigieg would beat them then Buttigieg would definitely challenge her for the nomination
Plus Buttigieg would be the first openly homosexual President, just as symbolic as the first female minority President, especially given Obama has already been the first African American President and Harris has already been elected to be VP anyway
I reckon Harris as President and Buttigieg as VP. A Harris/Buttigieg ticket would certainly trigger any racist, misogynistic, homophobes that coincidentally voted for Trump. I'd look forward to the culture war / identity politics mayhem that would ensue. Or maybe the USA is just growing up and may celebrate its (increasingly) diverse, in every respect, population?
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I can't make my mind up about Cuomo. They guy's clearly got the ambition and the cojones to run for Prez, and even if some might say he'd be handicapped by being the Governor of ultra-librul New York, he's actually pretty moderate himself and has built up a huge amount of capital from his adroit handling of the Coronavirus here. But then on the other hand, for the same reason the Governorship of New York is his now to the day he dies if he so wishes, and I think he genuinely loves the job and loves the state. Also, he gets to crap on Bill de Blasio on a daily basis as Governor and it would look a bit un-Presidential if he carried on doing that from the White House.
Surely Cuomo would stand if he thinks he's got a reasonable chance? Given his age, opportunity will never come knocking again. And much though I'm sure he enjoys his current job (and Governor of NY is a great job to have no doubt) it isn't President of the United States of America - that's simply too big a prize not to reach for if you're as ambitious as Cuomo and feel you've a real shot.
As I've mentioned before, i think Buttigieg would not fare well against many Republican candidates. Bright as he is, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, he looks to me very much a Clinton-era politician.
Yes, don’t see him energising the base either. Seems to have issues with too many demographics of the Dem base - young progressives and Black voters for example.
I agree with others who say that Harris will be in pole position for the Dem nomination.
With 95% reporting in Nevada and further mail-in ballots to come from Clark County it looks like the margin will be Biden +3 - John Ralston hits the mark again.
Since 1928 only three elections have not had an incumbent President or Veep as the nominee on the ballot: 1952, 1968 and 2016.
In every other election either the incumbent President or Veep has retained the nomination.
If Harris as incumbent Veep wants the nomination it is hers for the taking.
By my reckoning 7 (8 if you count Ford) former Veeps have become nominee in that time. Truman ! Nixon LBJ ! Ford * Mondale HW Bush Gore Biden (though after a gap)
! As president following death of former President. * As President following resignation of Nixon, was never actually elected as Veep.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
Hmm... you may be right. I just have a feeling she’ll have solidified things enough by 2024 to be fairly insurmountable. You are right though, I don’t see Buttigieg has her main challenger. He needs to get into a higher elected office first. I suppose he might be a member of Biden’s cabinet, but cabinet members don’t have a great track record of winning nominations (the last I suppose was Hillary but she had been a senator before SoS).
As someone else mentioned, there's a non-zero chance she'd be running as President seeking re-election, which would make her very tough to beat (Ford barely squeaked through against Reagan in 1976 but harder circumstances).
I'd say a Governor would be best placed if Biden's administration is somewhat unpopular. New broom appeal. The bench isn't massively strong there, but Newsom (California), Grisham (New Mexico) or Beshear (Kentucky) are possibilities. As mentioned on previous thread, Cuomo (New York) may be the man who jailed Trump by 2024.
No, it'd be the Attorney-General of New York, elected by the state legislature, and/or the New York County District Attorney, elected by the people of Manhattan, who'd do that. All the Governor of New York could bring to the process is the exercise of executive clemency. Fat chance of that!
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I can't make my mind up about Cuomo. They guy's clearly got the ambition and the cojones to run for Prez, and even if some might say he'd be handicapped by being the Governor of ultra-librul New York, he's actually pretty moderate himself and has built up a huge amount of capital from his adroit handling of the Coronavirus here. But then on the other hand, for the same reason the Governorship of New York is his now to the day he dies if he so wishes, and I think he genuinely loves the job and loves the state. Also, he gets to crap on Bill de Blasio on a daily basis as Governor and it would look a bit un-Presidential if he carried on doing that from the White House.
That last is enough to make anyone stay in the job.
Personally, I don't think the Cuomo brand translates to the national stage. Not even sure if the NY brand does. Said as a former denizen of NYC and huge fan.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I can't make my mind up about Cuomo. They guy's clearly got the ambition and the cojones to run for Prez, and even if some might say he'd be handicapped by being the Governor of ultra-librul New York, he's actually pretty moderate himself and has built up a huge amount of capital from his adroit handling of the Coronavirus here. But then on the other hand, for the same reason the Governorship of New York is his now to the day he dies if he so wishes, and I think he genuinely loves the job and loves the state. Also, he gets to crap on Bill de Blasio on a daily basis as Governor and it would look a bit un-Presidential if he carried on doing that from the White House.
Surely Cuomo would stand if he thinks he's got a reasonable chance? Given his age, opportunity will never come knocking again. And much though I'm sure he enjoys his current job (and Governor of NY is a great job to have no doubt) it isn't President of the United States of America - that's simply too big a prize not to reach for if you're as ambitious as Cuomo and feel you've a real shot.
Precisely, which is why I can't make up my mind. My head says he will, my heart says he won't.
I suspect Trump will be a distant memory by 2024. Yes, his supporters are exploding at the moment, but things move quickly in politics and I don't suppose too many of them have huge attention spans. It's like those Tories in 1990 who, for a short while, were convinced that Maggie would return one day.
Trump himself will likely be, but the ideology he represents, I suspect, will continue to live on unfortunately. The worldview Trump embodies pre-dates his nomination, as Adam Serwer eloquently explains in this article:
Russia claimed today that its controversial Covid-19 vaccine is 90 per cent effective - shortly after Pfizer sparked a wave of optimism around the world by giving the same figure for its own vaccine.
Doesn't Trump running in 2024 mean Biden is far more likely to run as well?
He'd be 82 at the start of his second term, and 86 at the end of it. And it's known as quite a tough job. I just don't see it.
He's said he was a bridge, and I take him at his word on that.
It's also not obvious he'd have the best chance in 2024. This isn't actually a criticism as I think it was right for 2020 with hindsight - but he's a low energy person at a time people wanted a break from high energy, a throw back to the administration of a President with high retrospective approval ratings, and a somewhat "generic" Democrat in a country which is slightly more blue than red at the moment. That isn't necessarily the recipe for 2024 if Trump runs again - people may well be a bit bored of low energy, the economy may be at a sluggish phase and so on. The right offer might well be "something different and more exciting... but not THAT different and exciting".
I think he would be dead. Don't fancy his chances of completing his first term to be honest.
I think he's more likely to retire than die. Wouldn't surprise me if he does after 2 years (ideal for Harris so she can have a potential 2 terms of her own).
Trump's ego would get in the way of him stepping down, I don't think Biden's would. If he gets a bad diagnosis for instance I think he is self aware enough to retire.
Russia claimed today that its controversial Covid-19 vaccine is 90 per cent effective - shortly after Pfizer sparked a wave of optimism around the world by giving the same figure for its own vaccine.
I suspect Trump will be a distant memory by 2024. Yes, his supporters are exploding at the moment, but things move quickly in politics and I don't suppose too many of them have huge attention spans. It's like those Tories in 1990 who, for a short while, were convinced that Maggie would return one day.
Trump himself will likely be, but the ideology he represents, I suspect, will continue to live on unfortunately. The worldview Trump embodies pre-dates his nomination, as Adam Serwer eloquently explains in this article:
Indeed Trump's ideology has been found in both Southern Democrats who ran for the presidency like Thurmond in 1948 and Wallace in 1968 as well as Goldwater in 1964 and Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 on the GOP side, just he is the first one who was able to win the Presidency on it
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Doesn't Trump running in 2024 mean Biden is far more likely to run as well?
He'd be 82 at the start of his second term, and 86 at the end of it. And it's known as quite a tough job. I just don't see it.
He's said he was a bridge, and I take him at his word on that.
It's also not obvious he'd have the best chance in 2024. This isn't actually a criticism as I think it was right for 2020 with hindsight - but he's a low energy person at a time people wanted a break from high energy, a throw back to the administration of a President with high retrospective approval ratings, and a somewhat "generic" Democrat in a country which is slightly more blue than red at the moment. That isn't necessarily the recipe for 2024 if Trump runs again - people may well be a bit bored of low energy, the economy may be at a sluggish phase and so on. The right offer might well be "something different and more exciting... but not THAT different and exciting".
I think he would be dead. Don't fancy his chances of completing his first term to be honest.
People were predicting that about Reagan, but he held on for the full 8 years, despite having dementia for the last two.
Maybe the actual legal arguments are more compelling, but I don't see how saying it is more susceptible to fraud matters, even if it were true, to whether the votes should count, unless there is evidence fraud did take place in this election. Lots of rules might not be perfect but are still legal to use until replaced or shown to be faulty.
The actual arguments are no more compelling, and that's the point.
One route would be for Trump's legal team to find enough demonstrably invalid Biden votes to overturn the majority in multiple states. But they are a million miles from that and not even pretending to talk about sufficient numbers of ballots let alone talk with the tiniest bit of credibility about invalidity.
Another would be to force recounts, which is fine but they aren't close to recounts conceivably changing things in, again, multiple states.
A third would be to say that whilst they can't find however many thousand invalid ballots, the system was so open to endemic corruption that the best thing to do would be to disenfranchise the entire state and not certify the results. Short of a massive ballot factory being discovered behind a false bookcase in the Governor's office, it is laughable to think a court would consider the remedy proportionate for one millisecond.
It's doomed pandering to a lunatic's out of control ego, and not one tiny bit more... and they all know it.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Sanders contested Hillary's nomination "half heartedly" did he?
I suspect Trump will be a distant memory by 2024. Yes, his supporters are exploding at the moment, but things move quickly in politics and I don't suppose too many of them have huge attention spans. It's like those Tories in 1990 who, for a short while, were convinced that Maggie would return one day.
Trump himself will likely be, but the ideology he represents, I suspect, will continue to live on unfortunately. The worldview Trump embodies pre-dates his nomination, as Adam Serwer eloquently explains in this article:
Indeed Trump's ideology has been found in both Southern Democrats who ran for the presidency like Thurmond in 1948 and Wallace in 1968 as well as Goldwater in 1964 and Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 on the GOP side, just he is the first one who was able to win the Presidency on it
Yep, completely agree with that. Also see Lee Atwater and his campaign tactics, specifically in relation to 1988 election.
Since 1928 only three elections have not had an incumbent President or Veep as the nominee on the ballot: 1952, 1968 and 2016.
In every other election either the incumbent President or Veep has retained the nomination.
If Harris as incumbent Veep wants the nomination it is hers for the taking.
By my reckoning 7 (8 if you count Ford) former Veeps have become nominee in that time. Truman ! Nixon LBJ ! Ford * Mondale HW Bush Gore Biden (though after a gap)
! As president following death of former President. * As President following resignation of Nixon, was never actually elected as Veep.
It could even be Pence v Harris, former Veep v current Veep in 2024
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Sanders contested Hillary's nomination "half heartedly" did he?
Gosh, my memory must be playing tricks with me.
No the party contested it half heartedly by only having Sanders (who never had a real shot) as the only alternative.
All the credible alternatives stood back leaning just Hillary as presumptive nominee and Sanders as the eccentric. Only thing is that Hillary was so crap that the eccentric gave her more of a running than he should have.
My gut instinct is that this will not help their run off campaigns - they are basically telling those who voted in the majority of the state that their votes were illegal, or slightly restated, that they should not have a legal vote. In Georgia ... Sounds just a tad racist.
Entertaining stuff. I hope it carries on. Not because I have some antipathy for the Republican party, but because there will be lots of elected officials in these states who are doing a good, honest job, and I hope they have the self respect to not play along with a national narrative insisting they are incompetent or corrupt.
Consecutively in effect 'Sir John Major said a final vote could be staged on the outcome of the negotiations after an initial referendum on the principle.'
The 1980 Quebec model. The first referendum was lost so the second never took place. The 1995 Referendum was a straight Yes/No.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Sanders contested Hillary's nomination "half heartedly" did he?
Gosh, my memory must be playing tricks with me.
No the party contested it half heartedly by only having Sanders (who never had a real shot) as the only alternative.
All the credible alternatives stood back leaning just Hillary as presumptive nominee and Sanders as the eccentric. Only thing is that Hillary was so crap that the eccentric gave her more of a running than he should have.
And that was with the party apparatus rigging it in Hillary's favour, too.
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Sanders contested Hillary's nomination "half heartedly" did he?
Gosh, my memory must be playing tricks with me.
No the party contested it half heartedly by only having Sanders (who never had a real shot) as the only alternative.
All the credible alternatives stood back leaning just Hillary as presumptive nominee and Sanders as the eccentric. Only thing is that Hillary was so crap that the eccentric gave her more of a running than he should have.
"The party" doesn't contest the primaries. Individuals do.
And even if your argument was right, 2016 is EXACTLY the case for credible candidates NOT giving Harris a pass. Those who ducked it in 2016 now realise they missed a huge chance against someone who was the "obvious" choice but ultimately wasn't a good campaigner and was beatable if only they'd gone for it rather than leaving it to an elderly socialist.
As I say, I think Harris will come through. But I don't think it'll be a coronation - it wasn't in 2016 as it turned out, and there's even less reason it will be in 2024 because of 2016.
My gut instinct is that this will not help their run off campaigns - they are basically telling those who voted in the majority of the state that their votes were illegal, or slightly restated, that they should not have a legal vote. In Georgia ... Sounds just a tad racist.
Surely Harris will be in pole position come 2024 for the democrat nomination.
Exactly - unless she is disgraced somehow, it would be really hard for the Party not to go with her for two reasons - 1. First US female President 2. Quasi incumbent effect of already being in the White House.
In 2016 they tried 1 instead of 2 and it didn't work out well.
"shine. When this verb is intransitive, it means “to give or make light”; the past tense is shone {the stars shone dimly}. When it is transitive, it means “to cause to shine”; the past tense is shined {the caterer shined the silver}."
My gut instinct is that this will not help their run off campaigns - they are basically telling those who voted in the majority of the state that their votes were illegal, or slightly restated, that they should not have a legal vote. In Georgia ... Sounds just a tad racist.
That was my immediate reaction too without reading yours which is especially interesting as you are a lot closer to the action I believe. It's not a good look for them to say the least. Surely not all potential Republican voters are incapable of seeing through Trump's attempts to subvert democracy?
Trump could run again but I think Vice President would still be favourite for the GOP nomination eg in France in 2017 Sarkozy ran for the Les Republicains nomination after losing the presidency in 2012 but lost it to his PM Fillon who went on to lose the presidential election to Macron.
In 1980 after Carter lost, the last President before Trump who lost the presidential election after only one term of his party in the White House, his Vice President Mondale won the nomination only to lose the general election to Reagan.
I agree Buttigieg would be a good bet for the Democrats in 2024 if Biden decides not to run for re election and only serve the one term
IF Biden doesn’t run in 2024, I think there will be a LOT of pressure to coalesce around Harris. Whatever your views may be of her as a candidate, her strengths and weaknesses etc. It would be bad optics to overlook an incumbent VP who wants it, particularly one who has made history already by virtue of being the first black and female VP.
Of course, she might choose not to run, but I don’t get that impression from her. I think she’s ambitious enough to go for it and of course she’s run before (not at all a criticism, just an observation). I do think, however, if she wants to win in 2024 she’s going to have to improve on her 2020 campaign(s). I think she’s very talented and very sharp but I found her a bit of a lacklustre campaigner, which I must admit surprised me.
I think she'd get it but doubt it would be unopposed.
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
I would hope that it is contested. The winnowing of the primaries, and the consequent platforms that are examined are an essential part of a strong democracy. For all its faults, the Primary selected a winner from a difficult field.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
It will probably be contested but half heartedly like Hillary facing Sanders as her contest.
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
Sanders contested Hillary's nomination "half heartedly" did he?
Gosh, my memory must be playing tricks with me.
No the party contested it half heartedly by only having Sanders (who never had a real shot) as the only alternative.
All the credible alternatives stood back leaning just Hillary as presumptive nominee and Sanders as the eccentric. Only thing is that Hillary was so crap that the eccentric gave her more of a running than he should have.
"The party" doesn't contest the primaries. Individuals do.
And even if your argument was right, 2016 is EXACTLY the case for credible candidates NOT giving Harris a pass. Those who ducked it in 2016 now realise they missed a huge chance against someone who was the "obvious" choice but ultimately wasn't a good campaigner and was beatable if only they'd gone for it rather than leaving it to an elderly socialist.
As I say, I think Harris will come through. But I don't think it'll be a coronation - it wasn't in 2016 as it turned out, and there's even less reason it will be in 2024 because of 2016.
Yes, 2016 is exactly why a proper contest is needed. For all its faults and vast field, 2020 Dem primaries picked a winner while 2016 did not.
Entertaining stuff. I hope it carries on. Not because I have some antipathy for the Republican party, but because there will be lots of elected officials in these states who are doing a good, honest job, and I hope they have the self respect to not play along with a national narrative insisting they are incompetent or corrupt.
Yes, if I was cynical, I might suggest it had something to do with the fact that he couldn't find enough votes to switch the state to Trump....
Comments
Maybe the bridge of sighs?
People speak of Buttigieg, but I don't think he's the danger to her. He'd only be 50 if Biden served one term and she served two (and indeed, maybe he's a VP pick). And his sexuality only becomes less of an issue electorally over time. He's leapt from a small town to the national stage, and now needs to consolidate, work on the CV, win over black voters and progressives etc.
But Kamala Harris isn't the only Democrat who'll be 60+ in 2024. That generation probably won't get another chance (albeit Biden is the case that says it's not impossible). If you're Andrew Cuomo or Amy Klobuchar, you're being asked to give up your last chance for the sake of someone who, if you have the ego of a senior politician, you think has less chance of winning than you.
As I say, I suspect she'd get through it, but fully expect it to be contested.
The headline 90% figure for the Pfizer vaccine sounds too good to be true. Lets hope there's not a catch.
Trump hates Esper due to his gross disloyalty in advising that going full Tianamen Square with black lives matter probably wasn't sensible. The abuse will come - give it five minutes.
It's a great feeling when you have all the cards
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1325884977112883200?s=21
I'd say a Governor would be best placed if Biden's administration is somewhat unpopular. New broom appeal. The bench isn't massively strong there, but Newsom (California), Grisham (New Mexico) or Beshear (Kentucky) are possibilities. As mentioned on previous thread, Cuomo (New York) may be the man who jailed Trump by 2024.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-54877202
1. First US female President
2. Quasi incumbent effect of already being in the White House.
Most historic administrations havent faced anything like that handicap to overcome which weakens the value of the 11/13 stat. When the markets open the Democrats wont be anything like your 1.4 guide price.
Harris % out of the Democrat win is much more subjective and you might be right on that, but I would be different.
Septimus: carnal embrace is sexual Congress by the insertion of the male genital organ into the female genital organ, for purposes of procreation and pleasure. Fermat’s Last Theorem, by contrast, states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2.
Thomasina: Eurrghh!
Septimus: Nevertheless, that is the theorem.
Thomasina: it is disgusting and incomprehensible. Now, when I am grown to practice it myself I shall never be able to do it without thinking of you.
Tory MP John Penrose said he was alerted by the app, part of the operation overseen by his wife.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-54879756?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
It made all too much sense given Brown’s astonishing record.
Russia claimed today that its controversial Covid-19 vaccine is 90 per cent effective - shortly after Pfizer sparked a wave of optimism around the world by giving the same figure for its own vaccine.
Edit - and no clever dick remarks about Ford, please!
A Harris/Buttigieg ticket would certainly trigger any racist, misogynistic, homophobes that coincidentally voted for Trump. I'd look forward to the culture war / identity politics mayhem that would ensue. Or maybe the USA is just growing up and may celebrate its (increasingly) diverse, in every respect, population?
I agree with others who say that Harris will be in pole position for the Dem nomination.
In every other election either the incumbent President or Veep has retained the nomination.
If Harris as incumbent Veep wants the nomination it is hers for the taking.
By my reckoning 7 (8 if you count Ford) former Veeps have become nominee in that time.
Truman !
Nixon
LBJ !
Ford *
Mondale
HW Bush
Gore
Biden (though after a gap)
! As president following death of former President.
* As President following resignation of Nixon, was never actually elected as Veep.
Personally, I don't think the Cuomo brand translates to the national stage. Not even sure if the NY brand does. Said as a former denizen of NYC and huge fan.
Coronations are rarely a good way of choosing, and Harris has 3 years with primaries, to prove that she deserves the nomination. She needs to make her mark fairly sharpish, with no sense of over entitlement. She is a sharp cookie, so I expect that she recognises that.
Even being President doesn't guarantee the nomination. I remember Reagan running quite a competitive primary campaign against Ford in '76.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-nationalists-delusion/546356/
Trump's ego would get in the way of him stepping down, I don't think Biden's would. If he gets a bad diagnosis for instance I think he is self aware enough to retire.
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1325877779028733952
Simply Harris as presumptive nominee will get all the smart money and names behind her squeezing out the others.
Plus she is a smart cookie as you said and is already making her mark. Her introduction of Biden in the victory speeches stole the show but without disrespecting him. The next day all the talk was about her. That was the speech of a future President.
One route would be for Trump's legal team to find enough demonstrably invalid Biden votes to overturn the majority in multiple states. But they are a million miles from that and not even pretending to talk about sufficient numbers of ballots let alone talk with the tiniest bit of credibility about invalidity.
Another would be to force recounts, which is fine but they aren't close to recounts conceivably changing things in, again, multiple states.
A third would be to say that whilst they can't find however many thousand invalid ballots, the system was so open to endemic corruption that the best thing to do would be to disenfranchise the entire state and not certify the results. Short of a massive ballot factory being discovered behind a false bookcase in the Governor's office, it is laughable to think a court would consider the remedy proportionate for one millisecond.
It's doomed pandering to a lunatic's out of control ego, and not one tiny bit more... and they all know it.
Gosh, my memory must be playing tricks with me.
All the credible alternatives stood back leaning just Hillary as presumptive nominee and Sanders as the eccentric. Only thing is that Hillary was so crap that the eccentric gave her more of a running than he should have.
And even if your argument was right, 2016 is EXACTLY the case for credible candidates NOT giving Harris a pass. Those who ducked it in 2016 now realise they missed a huge chance against someone who was the "obvious" choice but ultimately wasn't a good campaigner and was beatable if only they'd gone for it rather than leaving it to an elderly socialist.
As I say, I think Harris will come through. But I don't think it'll be a coronation - it wasn't in 2016 as it turned out, and there's even less reason it will be in 2024 because of 2016.
https://twitter.com/MattyCFC88/status/1325856898558677000