Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:50 am Opinion President Biden should not run again in 2024

By David Ignatius

Joe Biden launched his candidacy for president in 2019 with the words “we are in the battle for the soul of this nation.” He was right. And though it wasn’t obvious at first to many Democrats, he was the best person to wage that fight. He was a genial but also shrewd campaigner for the restoration of what legislators call “regular order.”

Since then, Biden has had a remarkable string of wins. He defeated President Donald Trump in the 2020 election; he led a Democratic rebuff of Trump’s acolytes in the 2022 midterms; his Justice Department has systematically prosecuted the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that Trump championed and, now, through special counsel Jack Smith, the department is bringing Trump himself to justice.

What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.

But I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.

Biden wrote his political testament in his inaugural address: “When our days are through, our children and our children’s children will say of us: They gave their best, they did their duty, they healed a broken land.” Mr. President, maybe this is that moment when duty has been served.

[...]

I'm not opposed at all to the Ds running someone different (although I think that would represent a messaging failure more than anything else). The tricky part is the "who". If what matters are Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin...not sure Newsom is the guy? Harris isn't it.

i would vote for the garbage dumpster before i would vote for gn.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:00 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:50 am Opinion President Biden should not run again in 2024

By David Ignatius

Joe Biden launched his candidacy for president in 2019 with the words “we are in the battle for the soul of this nation.” He was right. And though it wasn’t obvious at first to many Democrats, he was the best person to wage that fight. He was a genial but also shrewd campaigner for the restoration of what legislators call “regular order.”

Since then, Biden has had a remarkable string of wins. He defeated President Donald Trump in the 2020 election; he led a Democratic rebuff of Trump’s acolytes in the 2022 midterms; his Justice Department has systematically prosecuted the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that Trump championed and, now, through special counsel Jack Smith, the department is bringing Trump himself to justice.

What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.

But I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.

Biden wrote his political testament in his inaugural address: “When our days are through, our children and our children’s children will say of us: They gave their best, they did their duty, they healed a broken land.” Mr. President, maybe this is that moment when duty has been served.

[...]

I'm not opposed at all to the Ds running someone different (although I think that would represent a messaging failure more than anything else). The tricky part is the "who". If what matters are Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin...not sure Newsom is the guy? Harris isn't it.

Whitmer, Polis, Klobuchar all come to mind. I think they are all smart enough to know that it is a shit job with shit compensation for giving up the rest of your life. Any hesitation they might have is understandable. Unfortunately Newsom wants the job more than they do...and the convicted rapist who fantasizes about fucking his daughter and rending our Constitution so he can not be held accountable for his many crimes.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:34 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:12 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:03 am

Your post sums up you're a moron.

How so? Many of us have thought Trump was doing a great job, and polls would indicate that more than half of us think Brandon is doing a terrible job.

Respectful answer.
A. It in no way "sums up" the 2024 race.
B. I admit I am confused. What does your comment have to do with randy's post? To me, if anything, your comment implies the tweet randy shared and his sentiment about it is false. Right? What am I missing?
C. Most people who hate Trump hated Trump BEFORE he was elected President and many if not most of the haters were in no way manipulated by the media in that regard.
After he was elected and while he served, many people hated him because he is/was a complete asshole. That wasn't "manufactured" by the media.
D. Do you not think the Trump hate is also "authentic" "by the people"? Of course hate is "authentic by the people" regardless if it was manufactured by the media or not.
E. Do you honestly think randy has/had any idea of who McKayla J @ McKaylaRoseJ is? Let me help you and him.

Respectful answer.
Much appreciated. I will respond in kind.
A. It in no way "sums up" the 2024 race.
Agreed. It does sum up the current polarization in the common discourse in that both sides seem to believe that their perception is the only accurate one.
B. I admit I am confused. What does your comment have to do with randy's post? To me, if anything, your comment implies the tweet randy shared and his sentiment about it is false. Right? What am I missing?
I think my post was more directed at you calling Randy a moron than agreeing or disagreeing with the OP. Randy's opinion is no more moronic than anyone else's precisely because it is subjective in nature, and we are all entitled to our opinions.
C. Most people who hate Trump hated Trump BEFORE he was elected President and many if not most of the haters were in no way manipulated by the media in that regard.
I agree that many people hated him before he was POTUS. I don't agree that the majority did so. I think people were either neutral or had a somewhat positive impression of him from his time on The Apprentice and the 2016 campaign. I don't think he would have won otherwise. I think the media has cast him as the villain at every opportunity since then, and it has had an impact on public perception.
After he was elected and while he served, many people hated him because he is/was a complete asshole. That wasn't "manufactured" by the media.
Again, I think you underestimate his popularity because of your own feelings and the people you associate with. I don't think he is a good person, but I don't hate him, and I'd be happy to have him as POTUS for four more years. Most people I know are of a similar belief.
D. Do you not think the Trump hate is also "authentic" "by the people"? Of course hate is "authentic by the people" regardless if it was manufactured by the media or not.
I think that's hard to gauge, other than via a less-than-representative sample of people we spend time listening to. In the end, it is mostly subjective in nature.
E. Do you honestly think randy has/had any idea of who McKayla J @ McKaylaRoseJ is? Let me help you and him.
I have no idea who it is. Something to do with sheep?

japhy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:18 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:00 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 7:50 am Opinion President Biden should not run again in 2024

By David Ignatius

Joe Biden launched his candidacy for president in 2019 with the words “we are in the battle for the soul of this nation.” He was right. And though it wasn’t obvious at first to many Democrats, he was the best person to wage that fight. He was a genial but also shrewd campaigner for the restoration of what legislators call “regular order.”

Since then, Biden has had a remarkable string of wins. He defeated President Donald Trump in the 2020 election; he led a Democratic rebuff of Trump’s acolytes in the 2022 midterms; his Justice Department has systematically prosecuted the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that Trump championed and, now, through special counsel Jack Smith, the department is bringing Trump himself to justice.

What I admire most about President Biden is that in a polarized nation, he has governed from the center out, as he promised in his victory speech. With an unexpectedly steady hand, he passed some of the most important domestic legislation in recent decades. In foreign policy, he managed the delicate balance of helping Ukraine fight Russia without getting America itself into a war. In sum, he has been a successful and effective president.

But I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished. But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.

Biden wrote his political testament in his inaugural address: “When our days are through, our children and our children’s children will say of us: They gave their best, they did their duty, they healed a broken land.” Mr. President, maybe this is that moment when duty has been served.

[...]

I'm not opposed at all to the Ds running someone different (although I think that would represent a messaging failure more than anything else). The tricky part is the "who". If what matters are Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin...not sure Newsom is the guy? Harris isn't it.

Whitmer, Polis, Klobuchar all come to mind. I think they are all smart enough to know that it is a shit job with shit compensation for giving up the rest of your life. Any hesitation they might have is understandable. Unfortunately Newsom wants the job more than they do...and the convicted rapist who fantasizes about fucking his daughter and rending our Constitution so he can not be held accountable for his many crimes.

When I shared the WaPo article I hadn't finished it. I have now, and as much as I hate to change horses when I have a (fairly) high degree of confidence Biden would beat Trump again, Ignatius makes some solid arguments.

I'm not opposed to dems running someone else either, and I think we have a number of potentially good candidates, including the ones you mentioned other than Klobachar, who for me is sorely lacking any "it" factor, much like Harris. Polis also lacks the "it" factor, but my impression is that he appears to overcome that with competence. Newsom does have "it", and would be nearly "perfect" for liberals, but I worry he wouldn't scale, nationwide.

Nota bene: Threading the needle of dems not making Harris the obvious alternative should Biden decide not to run, is fraught with the danger of alienating the Black female demographic.
Today In: Sticky Wickets much?

The uncertainty, trepidation, and volatility that would introduce this late in the election cycle notwithstanding, I'd still take our chances against the fascists every day of the week, and twice on Sunday, compared to the pos millstone "conservative" republicans have chosen to stake their, and our nation's future on.

newsome has the guilfoyle taint on him (and the bateman vibe)

no thanks

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:30 am newsome has the guilfoyle taint on him (and the bateman vibe)

no thanks

Newsome has the taint of the current state of the State of California hanging around his neck. What is he going to run on - "Elect me, and the whole country can be a giant homeless encampment overrun by illegals with out of control housing costs"?

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:30 am newsome has the guilfoyle taint on him (and the bateman vibe)

no thanks

He also comes with a lot of other, California baggage. Easily attacked as a coastal elite.

And the French Laundry taint

always with those big bad “illegals”

so fucking transparent

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:30 am newsome has the guilfoyle taint on him (and the bateman vibe)

no thanks

The Guilfoyle thing has always given me pause about Newsom too. But apparently, she's changed. (I've never bothered to look into it before.) Let he who hasn't made a poor choice in the past, throw the first stone:

Did Gavin Newsom Ex-Wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Truly Change Over Time?

...Delving into the past, Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, seems to have taken a diverse trajectory in both her personal and political life after her marriage with Newsom ended in 2005. The Governor’s comments suggest a distinct transformation in Guilfoyle over the years.

...Governor Newsom hasn’t shied away from commenting on his ex-wife. In various interviews, he has repeatedly stated that Guilfoyle transformed post their divorce. Furthermore, he suggests that she “fell prey” to Fox News, indicating a shift in her political ideology.

[...]

if i was an illegal homeless drug addict i would get myself to california. be crazy not to.

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:28 am When I shared the WaPo article I hadn't finished it. I have now, and as much as I hate to change horses when I have a (fairly) high degree of confidence Biden would beat Trump again, Ignatius makes some solid arguments.

I'm not opposed to dems running someone else either, and I think we have a number of potentially good candidates, including the ones you mentioned other than Klobachar, who for me is sorely lacking any "it" factor, much like Harris. Polis also lacks the "it" factor, but my impression is that he appears to overcome that with competence. Newsom does have "it", and would be nearly "perfect" for liberals, but I worry he wouldn't scale, nationwide.

Nota bene: Threading the needle of dems not making Harris the obvious alternative should Biden decide not to run, is fraught with the danger of alienating the Black female demographic.
Today In: Sticky Wickets much?

The uncertainty, trepidation, and volatility that would introduce this late in the election cycle notwithstanding, I'd still take our chances against the fascists every day of the week, and twice on Sunday, compared to the pos millstone "conservative" republicans have chosen to stake their, and our nation's future on.

With regards to "it" factor, I would posit that the only "it" Biden had 3 years ago was that he was not trump and did not have a toxic narcissistic personality disorder. I think the voters overwhelmingly demonstrated they wanted competency and normalcy in the White house in 2020. Maybe simple normal competent growned up behavior is the new "it".

If so, the three I named have demonstrated "it".

Colorado is the new Cali. Sure it has some problems but there are a lot of States that are envious of the successes there the last few years and that is demonstrated by the number of people moving to the State. Polis has risen as the State has risen.

trump has increased his public displays of lunacy since he lost the election. None of that is going to change the minds of the voters who wanted normalcy again to want to take a flyer on bat shit crazy again. Only the rubes want chaos. They think it favors them in some delusional way and/or they think their own self destruction "owns the libs" in some puerile way.

So, you're saying that if Biden runs again, he'll win.

/thread

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:42 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:30 am newsome has the guilfoyle taint on him (and the bateman vibe)

no thanks

The Guilfoyle thing has always given me pause about Newsom too. But apparently, she's changed. (I've never bothered to look into it before.) Let he who hasn't made a poor choice in the past, throw the first stone:

Did Gavin Newsom Ex-Wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Truly Change Over Time?

...Delving into the past, Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, seems to have taken a diverse trajectory in both her personal and political life after her marriage with Newsom ended in 2005. The Governor’s comments suggest a distinct transformation in Guilfoyle over the years.

...Governor Newsom hasn’t shied away from commenting on his ex-wife. In various interviews, he has repeatedly stated that Guilfoyle transformed post their divorce. Furthermore, he suggests that she “fell prey” to Fox News, indicating a shift in her political ideology.

[...]

The Governor’s comments suggest a distinct transformation in Guilfoyle over the years.

Oh.

japhy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:18 am Whitmer, Polis, Klobuchar

Whitmer -- LOL

Polis -- you know he's pals with and a former student/employee of Art Laffer, right?

Klobuchar -- meh

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 11:01 am

japhy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:18 am Whitmer, Polis, Klobuchar

Whitmer -- LOL

Polis -- you know he's pals with and a former student/employee of Art Laffer, right?

Klobuchar -- meh

And yet if you were going to go out of town and leave someone with your children, the keys to your car and a credit card; you would choose any of them before you would let trump in your house.

Not Whitmer.

She's imabalanced.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:35 am always with those big bad “illegals”

so fucking transparent

You caught me. I don't like people coming here illegally and screwing things up for the rest of us.

Spittin facts here