USA Politics

Back in 2020, a lot of observers expected Biden to resign by his term's mid-point and Harris to take over, so that some believed the campaign to be a backdoor Harris campaign. That didn't happen, obviously, so I'd be very careful with any speculation like that. I have no doubts currently that Biden is expecting to serve a full second term.
 
I think it was reasonable to think that at the time. I also remember thinking that Susan Rice was a better VP pick (she was also vetted at the time) and when it was Harris instead that felt like a clear signal that Biden was thinking about a possible successor as Rice didn’t seem to have any greater political ambitions (and is a nonstarter GE candidate). Whether that was part of the thinking back then and he changed his mind since then is anyone’s guess.
 
Newsom is a lightning rod and a boogeyman for the right, and I think he would have problems in the 2028 general unless he was up against a weak candidate. Zero chance he’s running in 2024 unless Biden has a stroke.

Assuming Trump wins the Republican nomination in 2024, the left will rally behind Biden/Harris because that ticket beat Trump before and would now have an incumbency advantage, so it’s the safest bet by the usual standards. That doesn’t mean it’s the actual best choice, since most people aren’t thrilled about either Biden or Harris, and pretty much no one of any political stripe wants another Trump vs. Biden election at this point.

The rumblings about Dean Phillips are much more interesting to me. He’s a moderate Democrat and a wealthy businessman from Minnesota who flipped a U.S. congressional district blue in 2018 that had been in Republican hands since 1961, and he’s managed to hold it through the next two elections. He’s in his mid-50s, articulate, and not one of these woke-or-bust types. He’s pretty much exactly the kind of person the Democrats should be fielding in a general election, and some big donors are trying to convince him to run. We’ll see what happens.
 
The rumblings about Dean Phillips are much more interesting to me. He’s a moderate Democrat and a wealthy businessman from Minnesota who flipped a U.S. congressional district blue in 2018 that had been in Republican hands since 1961, and he’s managed to hold it through the next two elections. He’s in his mid-50s, articulate, and not one of these woke-or-bust types. He’s pretty much exactly the kind of person the Democrats should be fielding in a general election, and some big donors are trying to convince him to run. We’ll see what happens.

Interesting case, indeed. Ticks many boxes. Haven’t heard of him before I’ll watch him more closely now.
Newsom seems kind of shallow, he strongly reminds me of the Republican presidential candidate that lost to Kevin Spacey in the House of Cards.
 
The first Republican debate was more interesting than I expected, and I think it benefited from Trump’s absence. The abortion discussions are way more textured in a post-Roe world, as you see pro-life fundamentalism vs. “art of the possible” pragmatism vs. states’ rights principles at work, and those are all credible positions from a right-wing point of view, but they sure as hell don’t mix. I also thought it was interesting that everyone on the stage agreed that Pence did the right thing on Jan 6, though DeSantis and Ramaswamy really didn’t want to emphasize that point.

Vivek Ramaswamy is clearly running to be Trump’s VP choice for 2024, and I think he may have locked that up tonight. He delivers his lines with punchy conciseness and he’s willing to say anything and everything Trump would want him to say. His positions are mostly batshit crazy, but that’s where the Trump folks are these days.

Asa Hutchinson is boring, out of step with Trumpism, and probably toast after this debate.

Doug Burgum seems relatively reasonable, but slightly boring and maybe a bit out of his depth. I don’t know if he’ll get any traction from this, but I hope he sticks around a bit longer.

Nikki Haley continues to underwhelm me every time I hear her speak, though I give her credit for admitting that a national abortion ban could never get through the Senate. I don’t see her moving the needle with this performance.

Tim Scott seems nice enough, but I don’t think he made much of an impression tonight, and of course he has some positions that would be poison in a general election.

Chris Christie acquitted himself pretty well, despite the booing. His best moment was probably the argument that no Republican has beaten an incumbent Democratic president since 1980, and the person who did that was a straight-shooting governor from a blue state. And that Christie himself had unseated an incumbent Democratic governor in a blue state. His attacks on Ramaswamy felt a litte desperate at times, but otherwise I think people who are tired of Trump’s behavior may take another look at Christie.

Mike Pence was in a really weird position, trying to take credit for Trump’s red meat policies while selectively throwing him under the bus, but not trashing him too much. He also looked a little desperate going after Ramaswamy. I don’t see a realistic path to the nomination for him unless Trump has a stroke or gets a 14th amendment disqualification or something, but I think he did a little better than I expected.

Ron DeSantis must’ve been taken off guard by the lack of attention he got from the rest of the field — everyone seemed to want to take swings at Ramaswamy instead. I think DeSantis’s performance was actually pretty solid, aside from dodging some questions entirely, and failing to dodge the question about whether Pence did the right thing on Jan 6. I chuckled at his refusal to participate in the first round of “raise your hand” questioning, instead just alpha dogging it and starting to answer the question at length. The guy’s a total dick and I disagree with him on most policy matters, but I see why he’s garnered some appeal with the base. Still, it feels like his star is fading and Ramaswamy’s is rising.

It’ll be interesting to see who makes the next debate, and whether Trump changes his mind about attending the next one.
 
It is late here, so I'll read it tomorrow, but the very title and the general situation reminded me of something.

"We had no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

- John Adams, Letter to the Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798, U.S. National Archives, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
 
So now that we've had our first Trump-less GOP debate and 4 indictments later, does anybody want to take bets on Trump either losing the GOP nomination or even losing an important early state (Iowa, NH, SC)?

I would still bet on Trump, but I am definitely starting to see a world where Trump takes an upset loss. In the last debate, Ramaswamy and Haley both emerged as clear Trump alternatives and, honestly, if they were the only two people running I think they would be more formidable against Trump. The problem is that the part of the GOP that wants to move on from Trump hasn't really settled on an alternative, but that debate made a strong case for Haley instead of DeSantis or Scott. Still, a lot of coordination within the party has to happen to make it a real thing and I don't think the GOP operates that way. On the Vivek side of things, I can see the logic of a hardcore Trump fan wanting to go with someone who isn't going to have to spend most of 2024 in the courtroom. Even if you think it's a political witch hunt, Vivek is making the "Trump without the baggage" case that DeSantis has failed at. If he weren't a vegetarian Hindu with a funny name, say a governor from Florida instead, I think he would be polling pretty close to Trump right now. If the field narrows early enough (giant "if") I can see this getting competitive.
 
Most of big times senators are. Joe Biden isn't the definition of innocence either. We recently saw that even SCOTUS Justice has been engaging to dubious activities.

Back to Menendez; with his hard stance against selling fighter jets to Turkey, has raised my suspicions. Not that Erdogan deserves to be treated F-16 but I never bought Menendez good intentions.
 
Most of big times senators are. Joe Biden isn't the definition of innocence either.

I've been saying this for years, you don't get to the higher echelons of power without having blood on your hands, I don't care who you are or what party. To get that far you have to "play the game" and that includes taking kick backs, cutting deals with shady individuals and/or organizations, bending to lobby groups, etc.
 
Back
Top