Tag: 2024 Democratic president contenders

First in a Series: If Not Biden Then Who? Part 1: Introduction to the Series

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Near Panic Ensues . . .

“[A recent poll] triggered another round of agonizing among Democrats over whether Biden should have passed on a run for a second term – even if no realistic challenger for the nomination has emerged in a new generation of the party.” CNN Politics commenting on an early November New York Times/Siena College poll

For many reasons many wonder whether President Biden has the “right stuff” to defeat probable GOP presidential candidate Trump. His age (soon to be 81) and mental acuity are the most publicized concerns among many who think he ought to step aside (although Trump has lately been viewed as having similar electoral drawbacks, not to mention 91 pending criminal charges).

Biden’s poor performance in an early November New York Times/Siena College poll shows Trump with a lead in five out of six crucial battleground states. Among scaredy-cat Democrats this has caused signs of panic and visits to the wailing wall. Moreover, his approval rating has dropped from his approximate average as of March 13, 2023 to 38.5% (with 55.7% disapproval) on November 8, according to ABC’s 538 polling monitor:

At first glance, this seems a terrible place to be within one year of election day. However, 38.5% is not his lowest approval rating; he was at 37.9% in early July 2022. As well, his disapproval score is not his highest at 55.7%; he was at 56.2% in early July 2022. Scant solace if you’re worried, I’d agree.

Nonetheless, since FDR, eight presidents have suffered lower approval ratings than Biden, notably, Harry Truman (lowest ever) at 22%, and Trump at 34% (note, polling occurred on January 15, 2021, while he was still president, but ten weeks after he LOST the 2020 election and nine days following January 6th when his MAGA “troops” attempted to overturn the electoral college vote). Nice finish, eh? In any event, historically, Biden’s present 38.5% approval rating is by no means outside the norm. Summing up: eight of the 14 presidents from FDR through Barack Obama “earned” lower approval ratings than Joe Biden has today. So, perhaps, less reason to panic?

At Times Panic Is Appropriate

RFK Jr.’s entry into the presidential steeplechase as an independent was first considered an insane gambit. He has lately emerged as a contender or spoiler as well, despite his status as a rigid anti-vaxxer, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, a stubborn position that there ought to be virtually no limits to free speech, and other ideas that border on MAGA extremism. However, the same New York Times/Siena College poll that deflated Biden’s job approval , provided RFK Jr. quite a boost in his among Americans aged 18 to 44:

“[A]ccording to the results of the New York Times/Siena College poll, one quarter of 3,662 registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin said they’d go for RFK Jr. in a hypothetical matchup between him, Biden, and Trump. And among voters under 45? He beats both the 45th and 46th presidents.” [emphasis added]

Although a debate rages as to whether RFK Jr. will draw more votes away from Trump or Biden, (or, perhaps, neither), seismic movements in the 18-44 traditionally Democratic voting bloc appear. Finally, biting at Biden’s heels, Jill Stein threw her biodegradable hat into the ring yesterday. Cornel West is also in the race. And pesky Joe Manchin is considering a presidential run as well. Others may lurk as yet unseen.

If approval ratings, and “who would you vote for today” questions are not dispositive measures, especially one-year out from election day 2024, they nevertheless have heightened the swearing and swooning of many Democrats everywhere.

“. . . even if no realistic challenger . . . has emerged”

“We have to be careful about predictions, even about yesterday.” Michael V. Matheron

Predictions about tomorrow and tomorrows are dangerous (who thought George Santos would be thinking about reelection?). At its outset, this post quoted a CNN article that asserted Biden’s age, acuity, and, especially, the results of the NYT/Sienna poll left Democrats “agonizing” over whether Biden ought to step aside “even if no realistic challenger for the nomination has emerged in a new generation of the party.” I recognize poppycock when I see it and CNN’s judgment is covered in poppycock. This, and future posts in this series, will, I hope, dispel that CNN conclusion about possible Dem presidential challengers. There are many “new generation” potential Democratic presidential candidates who are eminently “realistic.” Each has her or his talents that recommend them. Here, in the weeks ahead, we’ll have a look at some of them, for example, Kentucky’s Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and some longshots, like RFK Jr. and Bernie Sanders, and some surprises, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

One final note: The deadline for Democratic primary challengers are fast upon us and by the end of November deadlines in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, and others will have passed. So, to mount a primary challenge to President Biden, time flies . . .

Is This Election “Crucial”? You Bet It Is

Michael Matheron3 Comments

Crucial Elections Are a Moveable Feast

Once again we enter the one-year countdown until our next presidential election, and, as always, this is a crucial one. Trite as that observation may be, trite is not always wrong. At 74, I’m old enough to recall the 1959 election and every one since. Each of those was labeled crucial by many. Yet, “crucial” is a moveable feast: what were the perceived stakes then, in each presidential election? In hindsight, FDR’s election in 1932 was crucial for the nation. Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1860, became crucial for the Union of the States. George Washington, elected to serve in 1789 was a crucial election, perhaps most importantly because he refused to accept the mantle of king, and calmly retired to Mount Vernon.

Mostly and realistically, the crucialness of an election is a post facto consensus. For one example among many, especially during the conservative resurgence since 1980, people still argue, for instance, that Herbert Hoover’s laissez faire policies would have brought us out of the depression more swiftly and satisfactorily. Liberals see Ronald Reagan’s two terms as a wrecking ball to all we believe in; conservatives sanctify him, calling his elections crucial to the birthing of the Tea Party and the MAGA movement. We need not talk about Nixon, he was always obvious.

The point is that we ought to belay the crucialness game. It’s hindsight alone that generally makes the case whether the previous election was crucial. On the whole, most presidential elections have had but a modicum of cruciality. In hindsight, few presidencies threatened to utterly unhinge our governmental and constitutional foundations, although admittedly, FDR gave many a Republican a scare during that worldwide period of enthusiasm for socialism, ever more an honest threat then to many in the gilded class than now. Nixon frightened the Democratic party into an uncharacteristically fighting stance. The Bush-Cheney alliance accelerated the decimation of even the concept of truth.

Belay Waiting for Hindsight

And then there was Trump. Among the despicable and degenerate presidencies, his was the worst we’ve faced as a nation, and we barely survived him. Pardon me if I don’t waste time demonstrating that he swung a wrecking ball to all we hold dear. And far from just retiring to Mar-A-Lago, like Washington did to Mount Vernon, he is now more than ever before front and center, bringing fear and trembling to the majority of Americans, from old-fashioned conservatives to card-carrying socialists. Despite his very real legal jeopardy in courtrooms throughout the land, he confidently speaks openly about his policies for his next attack on his own country: martial law using armed services troops on our soil; presidentially ordered selective prosecutions; destruction of the civil service system; frightening cabinet picks; wildly disturbing pardons; historical revision. What else? Do we need mention the whole that would likely be worse than its parts?

As a looming dictatorship of the Kleptocrats, i.e., government by thieves, Trump’s enabler’s plan to steal not only wealth in all its material forms, but moral, intellectual, and cultural wealth. Moreover, they plan – are already planning – to use our legal, electoral, and constitutional systems to do so, and in so doing, to destroy those systems and install authoritarian rule, in a way they will maintain was “lawful.” And by and large, the opposition, particularly the moribund and reticent Democratic party, treats this election surprisingly lightly, as if an historically unprecedented malevolent threat were simply another presidential election. This despite Trump’s first term presidential record of abuse at every turn.

We don’t need to wonder if this election is crucial. No waiting for hindsight is required. Drop the debate about it. Use time, especially air time, more productively. We’ve already witnessed Trump and company at work; they openly showed their cards to the entire nation. He earned two impeachments, 90 some odd criminal charges for actions he feels entitled to, and near universal disdain here and abroad for using the nuclear option against our electoral college, and his own Vice President. If this was the warm-up act, imagine the main event. Despite my admission that hindsight plays an important role in labeling presidential elections crucial, we don’t need hindsight to label this election crucial.

We’ve been to the circus and we saw the elephants.