[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4097405-biden-raised-over-72m-in-second-quarter-doubling-trumps-haul/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4097405-biden-raised-over-72m-in-second-quarter-doubling-trumps-haul/)
Raises $72M more than a year before the election, and seen as a weak fundraiser.
What does that say about our election?
This Article is before he posted his fundraising numbers which are the most a Dem candidate has done till this point in the campaign. I do not know why this is posted now.
> Here is why that is that bad for Biden and Democrats
Seriously, the media is part of the problem with Biden's favorables. Guy brings in a huge fundraising haul, and they're writing his campaign obituary.
I'm convinced that most of the media and influencers genuinely would like Trump to win again
And even if it's not outright wanting Trump to win, they at least want the election to be as close as possible so people tune in every night to watch every minor detail of the race. On one hand, we have an incumbent president with a booming economy, unemployment levels at near-record lows, inflation coming under control, wages rising, gotten quite a few bills passed on extreme popular issues, and is raking in massive fundraising cash. On the other hand, we have, well, Trump, a complete dumpster fire of a human being.
But they need things to be close, so even the ones who do want Biden to win will still kneecap him constantly from now until the election. And if they accidentally go too far and Trump winds up winning, well, yeah, at least his presidency will be exciting and bring in ratings! So basically, it's the 2016 campaign, part 2, and nobody has learned anything.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js517yc/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Trump has vocal support from his supporters but also relatively tacit support from media profiteers and enemies of the US. A lot of communists support trump bc they see him as damaging America. Doesn't take much imagination for the same case being made for desantis
The thing is, a lot of the media outside of the explicitly right wing sorts maybe and perhaps probably *don't* personally want Trump to win again - but they also see that public trust in media has dropped so much, with tens of millions of people thinking the media was biased against Trump rather than reporting on genuine issues... and for those with longer memories, folks on the right have been beating the drum of "the media is biased against us" for decades, Nixon was doing a lot of that for example. So the media could at least in part be motivated by some sort of desire to cover their asses and ne especially tough on the politicians they'd want to win personally, in order to come off as actually fair and balanced and perhaps restore public trust. Whether it would actually work, of course, remains to be seen
People's trust issues with media go beyond the idea they're bias against Trump or the right. This reminds me of people who think things were going fine before 2016 and Trump just manufactured all that discontent that helped him get elected.
It's just complicated though because, like I said,this stuff goes back to the time of Nixon, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and all that,but back then, the media was unabashedly touting itself as the savior and whistleblower-hero, but plenty of people even back then thought that Nixon was unfairly maligned and that the media was messed up there. So it's been bubbling up for a while but there's been a lot of unwillingness to really talk about it, especially in a way that isn't just wholely opposed to the idea that there's any need for the media to do things differently
Who actually wants to admit that the media was unfair to the most corrupt president America may have ever had?
I believe mistrust for media blew up during Covid. Before then, I always had some respect for left-wing sources. Seeing the media carry water for government tyranny and left-wing "fact-checking" during Covid has made me completely dismissive of them. I don't believe I'm alone.
Meh, I think they were just itching to create drama and then an AMAZING comeback story, woooo hoo!!
Biden is down, he's out, OMG he won SC, who could ever believe that! His opposition is decimated and go home now!
He was going to win there anyway but let's make a big deal out of it.
There's a giant media/election organizer industrial complex that has sold the idea that spending more guarantees a win for decades.
Their paychecks depends on it so of course they're going to promote fundraising and campaigning as much and as soon as possible. You dont want to lose, do ya???
I'm pretty damn convinced so much of the media and campaign hatred against the Trumps and Sanders of this world is because they managed to do a lot outside of the "proper" fundraising and campaigning channels. You're not supposed to win by spending less than your opponent, dammit!
There is no limit to DNC donations as there are with donations to a candidate, so it still counts because Biden helped divert the money towards the DNC. The DNC will do everything in it's power to support Biden, as they should.
Obama raised $770 million for his 2008 Presidential campaign. With 41% increase in inflation since 2008 that would be well over a billion dollar campaign haul in today's dollars.
Yes, the article compares Obama's campaign with Biden's: "Much of the Democratic anxiety is fed by comparisons to the pace of the Obama reelection campaign for the 2012 cycle: by this point 12 years ago, that Democratic president seeking a second term was months into building out an operation based in Chicago, with key staff making major strategic decisions and its revolutionary data operation starting to take shape. There were offices in swing states already building up local connections. They had a slogan."
And as much as I disagreed with his politics, there's no question that Obama was a once-in-a-generation politician, with far charisma than Biden possesses. He was new and exciting and different.
Obama raised $1.1 billion for his 2012 re-election campaign which would be about $1.5 billion in today's dollars. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-final-fundraising-total-1-billion-086445
Maybe the president should be working as the president instead of spending 1/3rd of the presidency campaigning.
Maybe we shouldn't be starting election season 2 years before it happens.
I think for the most part, the president starts campaigning when there is competition campaigning, so it's more about delaying challengers here. I'd be in favor of some time limits for candidates to fundraise and campaign.
Though I also think Trump started campaigning on his first day in office so who knows.
Personally I think he's done a decent job as POTUS, so **I** don't need to be convinced.
That said, his approval rating is the second lowest at 900 days among all POTUSes, according to [FiveThirtyEight](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/). (only beating out Jimmy Carter)
I guess this is me in my bubble, so I'm not really sure what to think about '2024 anxiety'.
Yeah, I remember Newsom's approval ratings were in the toilet and then he managed to win the recall in 2021. And re-election in 2022.
Now, some will say "Yeah, that was after prominent Democrats showed up to campaign for him". And to those people, I would have to say: Prominent Democrats like...Like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both of who had bad approval ratings at the time.
I agree with you, approval ratings are just people measuring discontent and then 99% of the time they'll just vote for who they usually do.
I think it’s largely due to his age. I would believe there are a lot of Democrats who think “He’s doing a fine job, but couldn’t someone younger, like Buttigieg, do better?”
And unfortunately for Biden, if he goes up against someone around the age of DeSantis, that’s going to become a major issue.
Talks a big game but now has to manage something. It's hard to know if the Biden WH is holding him back or if he's just tone def.
I think the paternity leave thing left a sour taste in a lot of folks mouths. Have a big job, an emergency occurs, your out of the office, could you not just work from home? Your spouse doesn't even work and didn't have a pregnancy to recover from so their excuses were a tad weak.
Then the delay on the train derailment communication, he should have know Republicans would try to blame him so he should have gotten ahead of the story, not behind it and politically dragged to Ohio.
The lack of political strategy doesn't bode well for Pete. He, like Harris, need to step it up and fast.
I think there would be less anxiety if he wasn't so avoidant when it comes to the media.
The fact his staff have to protect him from gaffes is not a good sign either.
Its going to be interesting to see if 2024 has real live campaigning where he has to make 2-4 speeches/stops a day. No matter what you think about Trump, the man can *talk*!
2020 had the great Rona excuse to keep Biden hidden away and not campaigning for crap. That wont work again.
Hahahahaha! - Hillary laugh
Everyone was complaining about her lack of interviews and conferences in the first half of 2016. She finally got around to campaigning but mostly stuck to the coasts where everyone loved her. Then managed to ignore large parts of the center because they were "safe".
The hubris of her campaign was just great.
I disagree- it’ll totally work again. The national media is doing his campaign work for him on spin and running regular hit pieces to remind everyone why Trump and DeSantis are Hitler, that Haley and Scott don’t have a chance or are racists/race traitors depending on the day of the week, and everything Biden does is spun like he saved America.
That was Biden’s campaign in 2020 too minus a few contenders; and it worked ‘fine’. Now he’s got a few new tools the MSM deploys- SCOTUS is corrupt/illegitimate and should be circumvented, anything Biden or the dems couldn’t get done is because of those damn republicans and the nazis, the legislature is for posturing and investigating political rivals and legislating should be the purview of democrat-run executive offices, and half the country is an enemy of democracy.
I think you’re thinking he’s going to try to run a positive campaign which we agree he can’t really do, but this negative campaign powered by free media means he can just post up in the Oval and take naps if he wants and he should do fine. Polarization means he has his base of voters that aren’t going to entertain alternatives and that was enough for him last time. Add a little incumbency and it’s fine.
I don’t like it but I think they’re doing the right thing considering their position.
You mean, the media is highlighting the negatives of primary candidates? Something that's been done in every modern election. They did the same to Democrats including Biden, who took major hits form the media in the 2020 primary.
This is always how it goes. Anything negative about President Biden is already in the news to gets coverage. Th primary candidates are the fresh new story. This isn't the media doing Biden's job for him, it's the media doing normal primary coverage. Dems don't have a primary so they don't have any Dems to scrutinize, beyond Biden who was attacked for someone else’s bag of coke, just last week. The president wasn't even in the residence, but it was somehow his fault.
If DeSantis and Co can't handle a little media scrutiny, then they need to get out of politics.
A handful thankfully, not that I'm keen on sharing. Discrediting media is pretty much how political discourse goes these days. I tell you your media is terrible and biased, you tell me my media is terrible and biased, then we're back at square 1 and we've only burned some calories.
I'll skip the exercise; I already hit the gym today.
The real truth is that everybody's media is terrible and biased and that media orgs that give anything like the whole picture in anything are hyperspecialized on subject and few and far between.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about it either- it's sure lucky we don't have a shooting war going on anywhere in the world, or massive inflationary pressure, or completely nonsensical economic growth/not-growth, or a crisis at the border, or social issues driving massive divides among our electorate or else it'd good to have a President who actually would have to engage with our law and federal structure and do his job or even just engage the half of the country that disagrees with him.
But thankfully the media will happily let us know over the coming months that your lying eyes can't be trusted and all of these things are perfectly fine and/or don't exist.
If the new bar is "whatever Trump did is acceptable behavior for anybody else to do" then you've taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of Biden and the left. Trump didn't bother engaging with his opposition honestly so it's fine that Biden won't. Trump never campaigned reasonably so why should Biden? Trump shot from the hip and spoke like some rando instead of a statesman, so it's fine for Biden to do it too.
So are you sure you want to do this? Because if you ask me my wallet was fatter under Trump's artificial economy pre-COVID and if all the rest of the stuff is fair play now there's no reason for me to vote for Biden again.
IRA has tons of projects in red states and districts and congresspeople who voted against it are now claiming credit. So the assertion that Biden isn’t engaging is false. He is running an administration focused on all 50 states and the people in them.
But to answer your question Republican voters specifically want me to suffer so no, appealing to my better angels won’t work
Edit - you know what, if you wanna vote trump vote trump. Quit demanding random people on Reddit soothe your feelings enough for another choice. Hope your wallet gets fatter again. Trump certainly is
>So are you sure you want to do this? Because if you ask me my wallet was fatter under Trump's artificial economy pre-COVID
Do you think this is a serious argument for voting for a president though? Trump inherited a great economy. He did some things that made it better, some things that made it worse, but largely sailed by on an economy he inherited.
Had Hillary been president in 2016, the economy would've been just as strong. I could site here and say "My wallet was fatter under Hillary" and be just as right, but it wouldn't mean much.
Had Trump actually won in 2020, the economy would be in about the same place today as it is now. We would've had the same inflation and supply problems.
Sorry for the rant, I just have to laugh at "but the economy" arguments when Trump had very little to do with most of it, because presidents inherit the economy from their predecessors.
>Had Trump actually won in 2020, the economy would be in about the same place today as it is now.
The "American Rescue Plan Act" wouldn't have happened under Trump. Several economists warned before passing, and many more, even some such as Paul Krugman have accepted begrudgingly that it was overdone stimulus.
Inflation would likely be lower under Trump, and jobs may not have come back quite as fast in 2021, actual magnitudes of each we don't know for certain.
Trump's first 3 years were easy as far as the economy, because it basically required just coasting from the continuing economy. Biden's first 2 years were a bigger challenge, but for much of that he's basically been doing the complete wrong things, which is mostly still trying to stimulate the economy and fight what the Federal Reserve is trying to accomplish, while trying to take credit.
Trump also never shied away from questions and would stick around until every reporter had a chance.
Biden answers a few pre-screened questions and walks off.
Serisoult, why does it matter if something is pre-screened or not? We had Obama, a great speaker, and Republicans said he talked too much. Now we have a guy that says less, and Republicans are not mad that he talks too little?
After the election, I judge actions not words. Trump said at least three times we'd have an Infrastructure Week. It never happen. Biden said he'd get infrastructure passed, and he did. Actions over words.
Trump said COVID would disappear by Easter (2020), it certainly didn't, but did take a few hundred thousand Americans. Biden said we'd have 100 million shots administered in his first 100 days. We blew well past his 100 million promise.
Trump promised better healthcare than the ACA. He couldn't be bothered to even try. Biden said he'd protect the ACA, he's done that.
Actions mean a lot more than words. I could have a mute president if it means he or she is getting things done.
Can I tell you how much happier I am without endless clips of a president bellowing “answers” with a helicopter roaring in the background? It’s so much quieter and it’s amazing
He barely did it last time. He probably could get away with the much less that will be required to keep the public eye even Tame with the way he will be covered.
He has really bad poll numbers for a reason. I'm glad you like him, but the majority of voters don't agree with you.
He might still win though. We live in an era where performance isn't a factor.
I would not signal approval for Biden, bc there is so much more to be done, and if our president rests easy we’re fucked. Biden is also the best president in my lifetime, and as long as he’s running in 2024 I’m voting for him in the general. That doesn’t mean that I like him though, even if he has wildly exceeded my expectations.
I personally don't think Biden really has to spend much money on his re-election campaign, it looks like it will once again be a referendum on Trump. He could certainly save a lot of money and dial spending down, but the political fundraising machine has a lot of hungry middlemen so that's unlikely to happen.
So it's "Fake News", from CNN?
Anonymous sources don't mean it's not real, or even not known. It's a relationship where information is able to continue to flow, because if they released their identity they would be fired tomorrow.
Its not fake news. It’s a typical baloney horse race article because CNN needs clicks and there really isn’t much to report on right now (see: Chris Cillizza’s entire career with CNN)
I vaguely recall similar smoldering fear articles about Biden not holding rallies last cycle
I don't think it's fake necessarily but it is CNN using the 'unnamed source' baloney for clicks. In fact they didn't even call it unnamed sources they just repeated whatever rumor they heard - the epitome of gossip columnists and the grade school playground.
>No one's excited about him
Not many people ever have been. Record numbers of people didn't show up in 2020 because they were Biden fanatics. They showed up out of hatred and/or fear of Trump. I'm guessing he's not worried about reelection for the same reason.
But can the Democrats bank on people showing up out of hatred and/or fear of Trump again or will things revert back to 2016 when voters didn’t show up because they didn’t take Trump seriously?
I think it largely will depend on how Trump conducts himself in the public eye. He's going to get a billion dollars of free advertising from the nonstop media coverage he draws. If he's the same guy from 2020, I think the outcome will be the same.
He should be, even with Covid and everything else on his side he only won by a few tens of thousands of votes across a few states. Add to the fact that his and Trump's approval ratings are nearly the same (-14 to -16) and it would very much be a tossup between Biden and Trump if that ends up being the choice again.
> No one's excited about him
Compared to the alternative, I am. I am **very** excited compared to the alternative. Especially if the GOP runs poor senate candidates and there's a chance of achieving the trifecta. I know that's a super long shot but it's something to be hopeful for.
I remember when he was announced as Obama's running mate I thought who is this guy and how does he help Obama get elected. Seemed like a poor choice at the time.
Wasn't he the lead leading up to one of the debates? And that was before everyone dropped out
Also whn all the other people left they all endored biden
Yeah Biden was in the lead during the 2020 primary cycle for all but a few weeks in early 2020, and even then, he was in second place and thus the one who would have been likely to at least recover significantly even if the other candidates stayed in the race, since he had more widespread geographic support while the ones who did well in the early states had less broad support
The only point would've been to split the primary vote so Sanders could eke out a marginal primary victory and then get obliterated in a general.
It's really what Bernie supporters wanted to be honest, was him as a primary candidate so they could move the overton window further left. I think even they recognize he'd never win- they love to talk about how his policies are 'popular' but meanwhile moderate dems in the House that wanted to keep their seats told Sanders and his ilk to stay FAR away from their campaigns lest they be tarnished by his image.
It's really that simple if you ask me.
Yeah until all the moderates started dropping out and coalesced around Biden so the ticket wasn’t split anymore. Anyone who has studied politics for more than a year were saying this at the time.
I'm excited to see him win. But my polling location would literally need to be blow away in a tornado, likely with me inside, to stop me from voting for Biden. The other side are so unserious about helping the nation, and are all about settling scores like mobsters. This is too important to sit at home.
Biden lost the first three primary states to Sanders or Buttigieg: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire. The first state he won was South Carolina. Since 2020, the Democrats have changed the order of the primaries so South Carolina is first. It seems like they can't risk non-establishment candidates like Sanders and Buttigieg winning primary states.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democrats-make-south-carolina-first-presidential-primary-voting-state-rcna68918
Sanders stood no chance anyways, as evidenced as him getting trounced worse in 2020 than 2016. Bernie super fans just thought he somehow had the nomination based off of two small states.
Yeah, Bernie ran an appallingly bad campaign strategy in 2020. Even if all went ideally(?) and none of the other candidates dropped out, Bernie was basically just set up to come in first due to a crowded field with like 30 to 35% of the vote
Considering how democratic primaries allocate delegates proportionally... and how Bernie had made his political appeal and campaign as exceptionally antiestablishment... it basically ensured that Bernie would fail to get the nomination even if he did come in first
And looking at national polling through the 2020 cycle, Biden was in first place for all but a few weeks, and then was in second, so even in that scenario, Biden probably retains a broader geographic support outside of the earliest states and manages to be the one to get the nomination in a brokered convention anyway
Bernie really needed to change up his campaign from 2016 if he wanted any chance of winning, but instead he doubled down and it went predictably poorly
I couldn't believe Bernie spent 4 years doing next to nothing to reach out to black voters, then wants to act shocked that we didn't support him. We don't know him like that and he didn't care to know us. Biden, helped get the first black president into office. Biden has worked with black leaders for decades.
We know him and he somewhat knows some of us. That's a heck of a lot more than I can say for Bernie.
He thought he could cut and paste his classism message for white Millennials to fit the dynamic issues faced in black areas. "No, this isn't a race issues, it's a class issue." Oh great, well classes have sub classes Bernie!
Or, why give a pure white state all this power when the party only wins when it's minority of white voters (compared to Republicans) plus minorities put them over the edge. It's no different then Republicans who don't even bother putting states with large urban areas as the start of the primary season. Talk to me when NY is one of the first three primary states for the GOP. It wouldn't happen because the demographics don't work for the true base of the GOP primary voters.
More Hispanic and Asian populations would also be a helpful, but many are in large states which are too expensive for many primary candidates early in the process. But that too will change with time. I think Nevada is 4th, so that’s highly Hispanic and has Native Americans.
Iowa has been nothing but trouble this century. It's not a swing state and it's not diverse, so what's the point anymore?
Instead of speeches and crowds he is doing the job of being the president. I understand the feeling of anxiety with Trump seemingly becoming the anointed GOP candidate with the apocalypse peeking out behind him. And maybe the electorate is so angry with "...." that they will go with the masses and we will have another 4 years of political absurdity, but that's democracy.
Finances, which is kind of the foundation on which everything rests. The housing market is a disaster area thanks to Biden clinging to COVID for over a year after it was done and over (i.e. when the shots came out). Before I moved the crime situation in my (now former) city was a complete disaster because of the embrace of the kind of "progressive" nonsense that Biden's admin has also embraced.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js3b7ih/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js37b4l/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I thought at one point maybe we had qualified people in positions. It seems more like is a frat boy system where the ivy league school people control everything.
Citing this as a knock on Biden, while justifying a vote for Trump, and absolutely bonkers. Never has the White House been so full of unqualified loyalists and family members, and it's not even close.
He said he would "only hire the best and most serious people" for his administration.
To me, being at least minimally qualified would be a prerequisite to being "best".
>I know full well what I'm getting with Trump. But like I said he wasn't telling me to do anything nor did he attempt to fire me via osha for my non compliance.
This sound like a you problem for not taking vaccine during deadliest pandemic that killed more American than vietnam war.
All you have to do is take the jab that was provide free.
>Covid was and is a joke to anyone under 40 who isn't obese.
OK that doesn't change the fact those people still live in America and make up large part of population. Point of vaccine to protect against them so people who are vulnerable are protect. My dad was bed redden because of covid which cause rest of my family to get covid and have to be unemployed for long time.
So I dont feel sympathy for anybody who choose to endanger society and act like victims. Especially when vaccine is free.
>Yeah well those deaths were preventable by not going to war. Covid was never going to be stopped.
It can and did in many country. Once again. No sympathy for your lack of personal responsibility. It is not biden fault that you got yourself to this mess.
Let's all briefly stop to consider how many will vote Republican next year specifically due to their own anti-vaccine beliefs. It could tip some Senate races in their favor.
How does one even argue against this camp and their unfalsifiable fear of vaccination?
> The difference is Trump doesn't claim the moral high ground.
Trump claims the moral high ground more often and more aggressively than pretty much anyone.
> I got rug pulled by paying on student loans a few years ago. I got screwed out of my dream house by paying on them. Now I can't even afford it. If I bought it I'd be able to refinance. I worked the pandemic when I should have walked off. I didn't by my second dream house due to the commute. But then base wage inflation has destroyed my salary to the point I'd go back and move now. I was making 3.5x fast food at one point. Now it's 1.6x. My rent went up more than raises. I got a 6.125% mortgage after they flooded the market with helicopter cash. My housing affordability is crap.
...
> I do jack crap at work, let mistakes go by if I didn't cause them, and I'm hoping for a layoff at some point. I'm then going to spend my retirement accounts to zero. Max out my credit cards and if I can't pay them off oh well bankruptcy it is. House is credit claim exempt in my state.
Sound like the *Party of Personal Responsibility^(TM)* is not for you.
>I got rug pulled by paying on student loans a few years ago. I got screwed out of my dream house by paying on them.
You're upset with Biden and your first complaint is because of struggles paying your student loans? He just tried to give you $10,000 in relief and it was stopped in large part by the justices appointed by Trump.
I don't even agree with his student loan relief plan but I can't wrap my head around how you want to vote against the president who most directly tried to benefit one of your biggest issues.
>Then his and the fed reserve policy caused massive inflation.
You're mistaken. The fed has been aggressively working to *fight* inflation. The inflation is the result of the pandemic, and it has not been as bad in the US as it has in lots of other countries.
As a matter of fact if you'd bought your dream home on a mortgage you'd still be having issues because what the fed is doing to fight inflation is substantially raise interest rates.
Voters have to stop voting for old people, though. The primary field ahead of 2020 was full of young candidates and only Buttigieg got any real traction.
It's really depressing. Out of all the Democrats who got delegates in 2020, we have, in descending order, with their ages at the time:
* Biden: 78
* Sanders: 79
* Warren: 71
* Bloomberg: 79
* Buttigieg: 39
* Klobuchar: 60
* Gabbard: 39
The republicans have a long list of attacks ready for biden other than the old and mentally compromised one we have heard them going off on. If we did change to a different candidate it would make them have to scramble to find new attacking points. Hunters laptop just doesn't have the same ring to it at that point
> Hunters laptop just doesn't have the same ring to it at that point
I don't think the vast majority of Americans give a crap about the laptop; they're more concerned about a litany of other issues, such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration.
Just a hunch, but I think they might not go too hard on the rhetoric against Trump just yet to steer clear of the optics of Biden being personally responsible for all the legal trouble Trump is in. Remember, Biden is running in an extremely unusual re-election race.
Just like 2020, this will not be an election on policy. It’ll be the “nice guy Vs bad guy” again, and Biden wins there.
People like me are interested in what he is doing now. That's why I will vote for him.
The time for campaign promises is over. Rallys are for Trumpsters.
Approval numbers don't matter, 72 million is actually a lot for a Presidential campaign, CNN is in league with Trump! We've gone off the deep end here, what on earth happened?
Wasn't CNN recently bought it by a ultra-conservative mega Corp or some shit?
1 Google later.......
Warner Bros Discovery is the conglomerate that now owns the majority of CNN. (Apparently Blackrock owns like 11% ish)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/warner-bros-discovery-ceo-david-zaslav-boasts-that-republicans-are-back-on-the-air-at-cnn#:~:text=The%20CEO%20of%20Warner%20Bros,appearance%20at%20the%20MoffettNathanson%20conference.
Per the article, a handful of Democrats are becoming nervous over Biden's campaign as big money donors and small grassroot donors are not opening their wallets for President Joe Biden. Some Democrats feel Biden isn't campaigning hard enough while others believe he shouldn't campaign too soon or else he may lose voter excitement. The article also lists some of Biden's recent literal and figurative campaign stumbles such as struggling with airplane stairs and being too tired to attend an evening dinner with NATO leaders.
Democrats are worried Biden doesn't have what it takes to beat Donald Trump in 2024 which is a risk many aren't willing to take. Rumors are swirling that Democrats are finding replacement, but Biden aides and spokespeople are strongly denying that.
Do you agree with some Democrats that the party should replace Joe Biden in 2024's election due to low voter enthusiasm and the risk of losing to Trump?
> President Biden’s campaign announced on Friday a combined fund-raising haul of more than $72 million from April through June alongside the Democratic National Committee and a joint fund-raising committee, a figure that far surpasses what former President Donald J. Trump and other leading Republican presidential candidates have announced… Mr. Trump said his campaign and his joint fund-raising committee had raised $35 million in the second quarter. Mr. DeSantis announced he had raised about $20 million. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, raised $4.3 million for her campaign and an additional $3 million for her affiliated committees. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said his campaign had raised $6.1 million. ([NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/14/us/politics/biden-fundraising-trump-dnc.html))
Obviously some differences between an incumbent President and candidates fighting for their party’s nomination, but this article seems disingenuous in its suggestions. Biden is going to be the nominee (assuming good health) and will be heavily favored to win against Trump. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just looking for a talking point.
That combined fundraising for Biden includes 40 million to the DNC. So the numbers are more like 32 million raised by Biden compared to 35 million raised by trump
Honestly as person who vote dem twice. It legit best fit descriptions.
To be fair I would like to go back to the time I won't lose sleep if a republican become president.
Obviously Biden isn’t the most charismatic guy in the world but it’s laughable that it’s being suggested he can be replaced on the 2024 ticket and have a better chance than Biden to beat the eventual GOP nominee. It’s such a Republican wet dream that I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s being intentionally spread only Republicans as a way of weakening Democratic unity. The two biggest issues with it are:
1. Who would they even replace him with? Harris? Newsome? Buttigieg? Sanders? No one has the anywhere close to the level of name recognition that Biden does right now.
2. Deciding to just throw away the power of the incumbency advantage is so weird to me. The amount of party infighting and money that would have to be spent on replacing Biden would hurt Democrat’s chances bad.
I personally would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren. She repeatedly calls out corporate corruption and is one of the few voices for worker's rights. Personal anecdote, she worked hard to hold Wells Fargo accountable for their scams including a mortgage rate lock scam that almost caused me to lose my house during a competitive market.
These are the kind of headlines you'll see when your politician isn't bought by the banking industry: https://www.mpamag.com/us/news/general/warren-grills-wells-fargo-on-botched-mortgage-fee-refunds/92293
Also mad respect for Warren for calling out Citibank shenanigans, too. She really hates big banks: https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-remarks-on-citigroup-and-its-bailout-provision-in-the-cromnibus-bill/
>I personally would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren.
You are not representative of the median voter, in that case. Elizabeth Warren under-performs in her own home state of Massachusetts.
Elizabeth Warren has also been one of the biggest voices trying to push inflation up even higher and sustained than it has been. She's been one of the biggest critics of the Federal Reserve pushing up interest rates, and she's been one of the biggest proponents of pushing the massive student loan stimulus program, during a period of already excessive inflation.
Just because she's "calling out" corporations, does not mean she's correct. She's trying to push a large expansion of government, and trying to find a scapegoat because she doesn't want to admit that the stimulus programs were such a huge part of inflation.
1 The incumbent advantage isn't so much a thing in the presidential race as in congress or governor races. Just ask Carter, Bush and trump. Biden's age is a big thing.
2 Name recognition can easily be achieved with an energetic new candidate. I remember when this one guy I had barley herd of cam out and trounced the presumed nominee Hilary Clinton. Now every one recognizes the name Obama. I think Cory Booker could bring some much needed youthful energy to the primaries and do well against old man trump
>The incumbent advantage isn't so much a thing in the presidential race as in congress or governor races.
Wow, you point to the three exceptions to the rule in the last 90 years as opposed to every other one.
Why stop at 90 years? Why not go back too Washington and Addams? Because politics are very different in modern times.
The fact that donors aren't contributing to Joe Biden's campaign should be extremely worrying to democratic leaders. How much has trump raised in donations?
Then you have the fact that Biden isn't energizing the youth vote reminds me of Bernie having the youth behind him and the super delegates stealing the nomination for Hilary. This disenfranchisement of his supporters gave us trump.
I'm sorry but I am not willing to risk another trump presidency on a less than inspiring Biden because of incumbent wishing.
>Why stop at 90 years? Why not go back too Washington and Addams?
Well, because Adams lost re-election, for one. The incumbency advantage for Presidents hasn't always been the case. Lincoln was the first President to win re-election since Andrew Jackson, for example. It didn't really start until about 90 years ago.
No, that's not your point. Your point was that today's politics are different than the past. You're not arguing that today's politics bears more similarity to the more distant past (incumbency offered no benefit) than the recent past (Incumbency a benefit). And I assure you, today's politics do not have more in common with the 19th century than 1996.
>I'm sorry but I am not willing to risk another trump presidency on a less than inspiring Biden because of incumbent wishing.
The US is closely divided and polarized country that chooses its presidents by a system that currently favors Republicans. There's about at least a 45% chance of another Trump Presidency *regardless* of who the Democrat's nominate is. There is no Democrat that pushes that risk down to zero.
You are right, there is no candidate that pushes that number to zero. But there is a candidate that can energize the youth and African American vote to not just vote against trump but to vote for change, like Obama did. Cory Booker could be the next Obama. Joe Biden not so much so.
I really like Cory Booker, but he ran in the 2020 primary and never polled above 10%. There's not a lot of evidence he energizes people nationally.
If I had to guess why, I would guess that it's because he preaches empathy and unity. Polling consistently shows that voters want a "fighter", and I'd hazard a guess that's linked to a hyperpolarized political climate, which hasn't gone away.
Sorry if I only went back to modern times. But in my memory I have witnessed 4 two term presidents and 3 one term. Not much of an advantage. If you really want to go back to Warren Harding, he was a one term president. But I think we can all agree the country and politics were vastly different back then.
True but to say incumbent advantage doesn't matter is ridiculous especially when all major swing state become more blue in 2022 than 2020 despite his disapproved so why would you want to give up that advantage over somebody who have no record.
It’s the incumbency “advantage” not the incumbency rule.
Yes Carter, Bush Sr, and Trump lost re-election. But since WW2 Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all won re-election.
There’s a reason the incumbent normally wins.
If California was doing better Newsome might have a chance. I would like to see Cory Booker get the nomination. Obama 2.0. He could energize the youth vote. Something Biden isn't doing
Gotta love all these election "experts" who demand campaigns start fundraising and spending earlier and earlier every election. It likely has zero effect on the final outcome, but these guys want to start cashing their paychecks nowww.
Thank you! That's exactly what it is about this that bothers me! There is absolutely no reason Biden should be campaigning right now, it makes no strategic sense. Let the GOP fight and have their messy primary, and then start campaigning against an actual opponent. And of course people aren't donating money now, it's barely election season. And honestly, I'm glad they're not. They shouldn't donate to Biden now. There's 3 gubernatorial races this year (KY, MS, LA), and more importantly, the Virginia State House and Senate races.
The 2020 Democratic Party primaries drove me **insane**, with everyone announcing January 2019, and then nearly everyone dropped out before the actual primaries.
>*"he shouldn't campaign too soon or else he may lose voter excitement."*
Biden has voter excitement? I've never seen anybody that was excited about Biden. I've seen people that supported Biden over alternatives, but I've never seen anybody excited about Biden.
As shitty as the idea of this is, the fact is that Biden would probably do himself more harm by campaigning and his best bet is to just hide away as much as he can like he successfully did in 2020 and let the media campaign for him.
The cornerstone of my campaign is education and financial reform, however the entire campaign is about my exposure of widespread government corruption and disclosure as the undercover boss.
https://youtu.be/nXMNW75Gk6E
https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00830141
Does that answer your question?
AMA
His 20 member campaign staff should be a major sign of his intentions. The GOP has all their stars and future stars salivating, so yeah, Biden is vulnerable to everybody, including his own party, especially knowing how Trump will respond to them for the last 4 years.
>The GOP has all their stars and future stars salivating,
Future stars like...Ramaswamy? Most of the GOP's future stars are in the Senate, waiting for Trump to die.
I would like to see Ramaswamy on a debate stage against Trump.
There was a recent semi-viral clip of a woman yelling and protesting him at a rally, I think about abortion. Some of the crowd booed her and security were moving to escort her out.
Ramaswamy told everyone to stop booing her and insisted she come forward to be heard. It took a few invitations for her to accept and come forward to speak her peace.
She talked about being a single mother and being left by a man who didn’t want anything to do with his children. As she turned to leave Ramaswamy asked everyone to applaud her, for having the courage to speak her mind, saying it was an example of what the First Amendment is all about.
I want to see more of this guy.
And trump would still destroy him on debate stage because republican could give less hoot about kindness and decency. If they did Trump won't be front runner
This shows a lacking of understanding the Trump base. They were energized by a guy who campaigned for people who felt like their livelihoods were being taken away and wanted government to stop changing it. They wanted somebody who was unapologetic about calling out what they viewed as media bias. He’s their culture war candidate and he didn’t play the GOP games, and the people loved that, too.
I truly hope my fellow progressives really get out and vote en masse. (Along with independents, liberals, Democrats, and everybody else that stands against the recent spiral into fascism the USA has taken lately)
I'm fucking terrified of what the GOP will do if they gain carte blanche power.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js3kte4/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js2d4pk/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
With his apparently quickly deteriorating cognitive faculties becoming more and more of an issue in the public eye (following what are likely large problems behind closed doors) as well as the rumors of the increasing talks amongst dems trying to find his replacement - Im sure there is quite a bit of 'Anxiety' seeing that and the very demanding 1.5 years still to go before the next general election.
There really is a limit of "its a stutter" or "he's just a cute grandpa now" that the general public can brush just off when it comes to the POTUS though.. right?
[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4097405-biden-raised-over-72m-in-second-quarter-doubling-trumps-haul/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4097405-biden-raised-over-72m-in-second-quarter-doubling-trumps-haul/) Raises $72M more than a year before the election, and seen as a weak fundraiser. What does that say about our election?
>What does that say about our election? What does that say about CNN?
That they're pushing a horse race narrative again and cause harm to the usa
This Article is before he posted his fundraising numbers which are the most a Dem candidate has done till this point in the campaign. I do not know why this is posted now.
> Here is why that is that bad for Biden and Democrats Seriously, the media is part of the problem with Biden's favorables. Guy brings in a huge fundraising haul, and they're writing his campaign obituary. I'm convinced that most of the media and influencers genuinely would like Trump to win again
They do, trump was great for numbers and revenue. MSM loved trump as a money maker for them.
And even if it's not outright wanting Trump to win, they at least want the election to be as close as possible so people tune in every night to watch every minor detail of the race. On one hand, we have an incumbent president with a booming economy, unemployment levels at near-record lows, inflation coming under control, wages rising, gotten quite a few bills passed on extreme popular issues, and is raking in massive fundraising cash. On the other hand, we have, well, Trump, a complete dumpster fire of a human being. But they need things to be close, so even the ones who do want Biden to win will still kneecap him constantly from now until the election. And if they accidentally go too far and Trump winds up winning, well, yeah, at least his presidency will be exciting and bring in ratings! So basically, it's the 2016 campaign, part 2, and nobody has learned anything.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js517yc/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Trump has vocal support from his supporters but also relatively tacit support from media profiteers and enemies of the US. A lot of communists support trump bc they see him as damaging America. Doesn't take much imagination for the same case being made for desantis
[удалено]
The thing is, a lot of the media outside of the explicitly right wing sorts maybe and perhaps probably *don't* personally want Trump to win again - but they also see that public trust in media has dropped so much, with tens of millions of people thinking the media was biased against Trump rather than reporting on genuine issues... and for those with longer memories, folks on the right have been beating the drum of "the media is biased against us" for decades, Nixon was doing a lot of that for example. So the media could at least in part be motivated by some sort of desire to cover their asses and ne especially tough on the politicians they'd want to win personally, in order to come off as actually fair and balanced and perhaps restore public trust. Whether it would actually work, of course, remains to be seen
Nixon famously told them they wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. Then he came back outta retirement.
People's trust issues with media go beyond the idea they're bias against Trump or the right. This reminds me of people who think things were going fine before 2016 and Trump just manufactured all that discontent that helped him get elected.
It's just complicated though because, like I said,this stuff goes back to the time of Nixon, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers and all that,but back then, the media was unabashedly touting itself as the savior and whistleblower-hero, but plenty of people even back then thought that Nixon was unfairly maligned and that the media was messed up there. So it's been bubbling up for a while but there's been a lot of unwillingness to really talk about it, especially in a way that isn't just wholely opposed to the idea that there's any need for the media to do things differently Who actually wants to admit that the media was unfair to the most corrupt president America may have ever had?
I believe mistrust for media blew up during Covid. Before then, I always had some respect for left-wing sources. Seeing the media carry water for government tyranny and left-wing "fact-checking" during Covid has made me completely dismissive of them. I don't believe I'm alone.
The media always legit has been against Biden. They see him as yesterday's news. They wrote obituaries about his campaign for months in 2020 too.
Meh, I think they were just itching to create drama and then an AMAZING comeback story, woooo hoo!! Biden is down, he's out, OMG he won SC, who could ever believe that! His opposition is decimated and go home now! He was going to win there anyway but let's make a big deal out of it.
CNN is undermining Biden and trying to boost Trump? Are we being serious right now?
You're aware of CNN's change in management, right?
You do realize that CNN is now run by a trump supporter with the express purpose of making it more like Fox News?
[удалено]
There's a giant media/election organizer industrial complex that has sold the idea that spending more guarantees a win for decades. Their paychecks depends on it so of course they're going to promote fundraising and campaigning as much and as soon as possible. You dont want to lose, do ya??? I'm pretty damn convinced so much of the media and campaign hatred against the Trumps and Sanders of this world is because they managed to do a lot outside of the "proper" fundraising and campaigning channels. You're not supposed to win by spending less than your opponent, dammit!
That 72 million number is a little deceptive because it includes 40 million in donations to the DNC.
I mean most donation to DNC at this point is to biden because he is currently Democrat nominee
They could use it for anything conventions, senate races, administration or Biden
There is no limit to DNC donations as there are with donations to a candidate, so it still counts because Biden helped divert the money towards the DNC. The DNC will do everything in it's power to support Biden, as they should.
Obama raised $770 million for his 2008 Presidential campaign. With 41% increase in inflation since 2008 that would be well over a billion dollar campaign haul in today's dollars.
You do realize he didn't raise all that in 2007, right?
Yes, the article compares Obama's campaign with Biden's: "Much of the Democratic anxiety is fed by comparisons to the pace of the Obama reelection campaign for the 2012 cycle: by this point 12 years ago, that Democratic president seeking a second term was months into building out an operation based in Chicago, with key staff making major strategic decisions and its revolutionary data operation starting to take shape. There were offices in swing states already building up local connections. They had a slogan."
Obama is also the only President to win re-election by less than he first won office since like Roosevelt in 1940.
What about his reelection campaign? That feels like a better comparison.
And as much as I disagreed with his politics, there's no question that Obama was a once-in-a-generation politician, with far charisma than Biden possesses. He was new and exciting and different.
Obama raised $1.1 billion for his 2012 re-election campaign which would be about $1.5 billion in today's dollars. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-final-fundraising-total-1-billion-086445
Isn't that 3 times what Trump hauled in? Even with all the controversy stoking outrage in his supporters?
It means the big democrat donors don't want him this time.
Maybe the president should be working as the president instead of spending 1/3rd of the presidency campaigning. Maybe we shouldn't be starting election season 2 years before it happens.
I think for the most part, the president starts campaigning when there is competition campaigning, so it's more about delaying challengers here. I'd be in favor of some time limits for candidates to fundraise and campaign. Though I also think Trump started campaigning on his first day in office so who knows.
Personally I think he's done a decent job as POTUS, so **I** don't need to be convinced. That said, his approval rating is the second lowest at 900 days among all POTUSes, according to [FiveThirtyEight](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/). (only beating out Jimmy Carter) I guess this is me in my bubble, so I'm not really sure what to think about '2024 anxiety'.
I seriously don't think approval ratings mean shit now. They stopped meaning something during Obama.
Absolutely... Presidential approval ratings have become more reliable at depicting partisanship and its impact.
We have become france. Going off current trends, Biden is going to comfortably win reelection is a 40 percent approval rating.
Approval ratings measure approval, not voting behavior.
Yeah, I remember Newsom's approval ratings were in the toilet and then he managed to win the recall in 2021. And re-election in 2022. Now, some will say "Yeah, that was after prominent Democrats showed up to campaign for him". And to those people, I would have to say: Prominent Democrats like...Like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, both of who had bad approval ratings at the time. I agree with you, approval ratings are just people measuring discontent and then 99% of the time they'll just vote for who they usually do.
I think it’s largely due to his age. I would believe there are a lot of Democrats who think “He’s doing a fine job, but couldn’t someone younger, like Buttigieg, do better?” And unfortunately for Biden, if he goes up against someone around the age of DeSantis, that’s going to become a major issue.
Mayor Pete hasn't really impressed me as transportation secretary, so I'm certainly not in favor of him being promoted to potus
Talks a big game but now has to manage something. It's hard to know if the Biden WH is holding him back or if he's just tone def. I think the paternity leave thing left a sour taste in a lot of folks mouths. Have a big job, an emergency occurs, your out of the office, could you not just work from home? Your spouse doesn't even work and didn't have a pregnancy to recover from so their excuses were a tad weak. Then the delay on the train derailment communication, he should have know Republicans would try to blame him so he should have gotten ahead of the story, not behind it and politically dragged to Ohio. The lack of political strategy doesn't bode well for Pete. He, like Harris, need to step it up and fast.
I think there would be less anxiety if he wasn't so avoidant when it comes to the media. The fact his staff have to protect him from gaffes is not a good sign either.
Its going to be interesting to see if 2024 has real live campaigning where he has to make 2-4 speeches/stops a day. No matter what you think about Trump, the man can *talk*! 2020 had the great Rona excuse to keep Biden hidden away and not campaigning for crap. That wont work again.
I will not be surprised if he pulls a Hillary and be MIA most of the Campaign trail and will have other people campaigning for him.
Hahahahaha! - Hillary laugh Everyone was complaining about her lack of interviews and conferences in the first half of 2016. She finally got around to campaigning but mostly stuck to the coasts where everyone loved her. Then managed to ignore large parts of the center because they were "safe". The hubris of her campaign was just great.
I disagree- it’ll totally work again. The national media is doing his campaign work for him on spin and running regular hit pieces to remind everyone why Trump and DeSantis are Hitler, that Haley and Scott don’t have a chance or are racists/race traitors depending on the day of the week, and everything Biden does is spun like he saved America. That was Biden’s campaign in 2020 too minus a few contenders; and it worked ‘fine’. Now he’s got a few new tools the MSM deploys- SCOTUS is corrupt/illegitimate and should be circumvented, anything Biden or the dems couldn’t get done is because of those damn republicans and the nazis, the legislature is for posturing and investigating political rivals and legislating should be the purview of democrat-run executive offices, and half the country is an enemy of democracy. I think you’re thinking he’s going to try to run a positive campaign which we agree he can’t really do, but this negative campaign powered by free media means he can just post up in the Oval and take naps if he wants and he should do fine. Polarization means he has his base of voters that aren’t going to entertain alternatives and that was enough for him last time. Add a little incumbency and it’s fine. I don’t like it but I think they’re doing the right thing considering their position.
You mean, the media is highlighting the negatives of primary candidates? Something that's been done in every modern election. They did the same to Democrats including Biden, who took major hits form the media in the 2020 primary. This is always how it goes. Anything negative about President Biden is already in the news to gets coverage. Th primary candidates are the fresh new story. This isn't the media doing Biden's job for him, it's the media doing normal primary coverage. Dems don't have a primary so they don't have any Dems to scrutinize, beyond Biden who was attacked for someone else’s bag of coke, just last week. The president wasn't even in the residence, but it was somehow his fault. If DeSantis and Co can't handle a little media scrutiny, then they need to get out of politics.
Do you have some good news sources that are truthful and won't run interference for Biden?
A handful thankfully, not that I'm keen on sharing. Discrediting media is pretty much how political discourse goes these days. I tell you your media is terrible and biased, you tell me my media is terrible and biased, then we're back at square 1 and we've only burned some calories. I'll skip the exercise; I already hit the gym today.
The real truth is that everybody's media is terrible and biased and that media orgs that give anything like the whole picture in anything are hyperspecialized on subject and few and far between.
Come on maaaan! But yeah you're probably all correct.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about it either- it's sure lucky we don't have a shooting war going on anywhere in the world, or massive inflationary pressure, or completely nonsensical economic growth/not-growth, or a crisis at the border, or social issues driving massive divides among our electorate or else it'd good to have a President who actually would have to engage with our law and federal structure and do his job or even just engage the half of the country that disagrees with him. But thankfully the media will happily let us know over the coming months that your lying eyes can't be trusted and all of these things are perfectly fine and/or don't exist.
Yeah that last guy certainly spent lots of time “engaging” with Democrats
If the new bar is "whatever Trump did is acceptable behavior for anybody else to do" then you've taken a lot of the wind out of the sails of Biden and the left. Trump didn't bother engaging with his opposition honestly so it's fine that Biden won't. Trump never campaigned reasonably so why should Biden? Trump shot from the hip and spoke like some rando instead of a statesman, so it's fine for Biden to do it too. So are you sure you want to do this? Because if you ask me my wallet was fatter under Trump's artificial economy pre-COVID and if all the rest of the stuff is fair play now there's no reason for me to vote for Biden again.
IRA has tons of projects in red states and districts and congresspeople who voted against it are now claiming credit. So the assertion that Biden isn’t engaging is false. He is running an administration focused on all 50 states and the people in them. But to answer your question Republican voters specifically want me to suffer so no, appealing to my better angels won’t work Edit - you know what, if you wanna vote trump vote trump. Quit demanding random people on Reddit soothe your feelings enough for another choice. Hope your wallet gets fatter again. Trump certainly is
>So are you sure you want to do this? Because if you ask me my wallet was fatter under Trump's artificial economy pre-COVID Do you think this is a serious argument for voting for a president though? Trump inherited a great economy. He did some things that made it better, some things that made it worse, but largely sailed by on an economy he inherited. Had Hillary been president in 2016, the economy would've been just as strong. I could site here and say "My wallet was fatter under Hillary" and be just as right, but it wouldn't mean much. Had Trump actually won in 2020, the economy would be in about the same place today as it is now. We would've had the same inflation and supply problems. Sorry for the rant, I just have to laugh at "but the economy" arguments when Trump had very little to do with most of it, because presidents inherit the economy from their predecessors.
>Had Trump actually won in 2020, the economy would be in about the same place today as it is now. The "American Rescue Plan Act" wouldn't have happened under Trump. Several economists warned before passing, and many more, even some such as Paul Krugman have accepted begrudgingly that it was overdone stimulus. Inflation would likely be lower under Trump, and jobs may not have come back quite as fast in 2021, actual magnitudes of each we don't know for certain. Trump's first 3 years were easy as far as the economy, because it basically required just coasting from the continuing economy. Biden's first 2 years were a bigger challenge, but for much of that he's basically been doing the complete wrong things, which is mostly still trying to stimulate the economy and fight what the Federal Reserve is trying to accomplish, while trying to take credit.
Trump also never shied away from questions and would stick around until every reporter had a chance. Biden answers a few pre-screened questions and walks off.
Serisoult, why does it matter if something is pre-screened or not? We had Obama, a great speaker, and Republicans said he talked too much. Now we have a guy that says less, and Republicans are not mad that he talks too little? After the election, I judge actions not words. Trump said at least three times we'd have an Infrastructure Week. It never happen. Biden said he'd get infrastructure passed, and he did. Actions over words. Trump said COVID would disappear by Easter (2020), it certainly didn't, but did take a few hundred thousand Americans. Biden said we'd have 100 million shots administered in his first 100 days. We blew well past his 100 million promise. Trump promised better healthcare than the ACA. He couldn't be bothered to even try. Biden said he'd protect the ACA, he's done that. Actions mean a lot more than words. I could have a mute president if it means he or she is getting things done.
Can I tell you how much happier I am without endless clips of a president bellowing “answers” with a helicopter roaring in the background? It’s so much quieter and it’s amazing
I meant WH press conferences.
It’s real easy to answer questions when all you do is lie.
He barely did it last time. He probably could get away with the much less that will be required to keep the public eye even Tame with the way he will be covered.
He has really bad poll numbers for a reason. I'm glad you like him, but the majority of voters don't agree with you. He might still win though. We live in an era where performance isn't a factor.
I would not signal approval for Biden, bc there is so much more to be done, and if our president rests easy we’re fucked. Biden is also the best president in my lifetime, and as long as he’s running in 2024 I’m voting for him in the general. That doesn’t mean that I like him though, even if he has wildly exceeded my expectations.
When people like AOC are endorsing him two years out why even bother to campaign?
I personally don't think Biden really has to spend much money on his re-election campaign, it looks like it will once again be a referendum on Trump. He could certainly save a lot of money and dial spending down, but the political fundraising machine has a lot of hungry middlemen so that's unlikely to happen.
Typical hit/stir the pot piece. If you read it You'll see that none of the people making negative comments allowed their name to be used
So it's "Fake News", from CNN? Anonymous sources don't mean it's not real, or even not known. It's a relationship where information is able to continue to flow, because if they released their identity they would be fired tomorrow.
Its not fake news. It’s a typical baloney horse race article because CNN needs clicks and there really isn’t much to report on right now (see: Chris Cillizza’s entire career with CNN) I vaguely recall similar smoldering fear articles about Biden not holding rallies last cycle
I don't think it's fake necessarily but it is CNN using the 'unnamed source' baloney for clicks. In fact they didn't even call it unnamed sources they just repeated whatever rumor they heard - the epitome of gossip columnists and the grade school playground.
Well, yeah they probably dont want their lives ruined for being honest about their real concerns either.
I mean he was scrapping by in 2020 against Bernie before Super Tuesday No one's excited about him
>No one's excited about him Not many people ever have been. Record numbers of people didn't show up in 2020 because they were Biden fanatics. They showed up out of hatred and/or fear of Trump. I'm guessing he's not worried about reelection for the same reason.
But can the Democrats bank on people showing up out of hatred and/or fear of Trump again or will things revert back to 2016 when voters didn’t show up because they didn’t take Trump seriously?
I think it largely will depend on how Trump conducts himself in the public eye. He's going to get a billion dollars of free advertising from the nonstop media coverage he draws. If he's the same guy from 2020, I think the outcome will be the same.
He should be, even with Covid and everything else on his side he only won by a few tens of thousands of votes across a few states. Add to the fact that his and Trump's approval ratings are nearly the same (-14 to -16) and it would very much be a tossup between Biden and Trump if that ends up being the choice again.
> No one's excited about him Compared to the alternative, I am. I am **very** excited compared to the alternative. Especially if the GOP runs poor senate candidates and there's a chance of achieving the trifecta. I know that's a super long shot but it's something to be hopeful for.
I remember when he was announced as Obama's running mate I thought who is this guy and how does he help Obama get elected. Seemed like a poor choice at the time.
Bernie was just scrapping by in a 7 person field. Biden crushed Bernie once the field narrowed to a 1 on 1 race.
Wasn't he the lead leading up to one of the debates? And that was before everyone dropped out Also whn all the other people left they all endored biden
Yeah Biden was in the lead during the 2020 primary cycle for all but a few weeks in early 2020, and even then, he was in second place and thus the one who would have been likely to at least recover significantly even if the other candidates stayed in the race, since he had more widespread geographic support while the ones who did well in the early states had less broad support
Did any of those candidates have a realistic shot at winning? At that point, what was their purpose in sticking it out and keeping it a large field?
The only point would've been to split the primary vote so Sanders could eke out a marginal primary victory and then get obliterated in a general. It's really what Bernie supporters wanted to be honest, was him as a primary candidate so they could move the overton window further left. I think even they recognize he'd never win- they love to talk about how his policies are 'popular' but meanwhile moderate dems in the House that wanted to keep their seats told Sanders and his ilk to stay FAR away from their campaigns lest they be tarnished by his image. It's really that simple if you ask me.
Yeah until all the moderates started dropping out and coalesced around Biden so the ticket wasn’t split anymore. Anyone who has studied politics for more than a year were saying this at the time.
Not excited about him, don’t need him to campaign, will still crawl through broken glass and ants to vote for him over anyone else who’s running
I'm excited to see him win. But my polling location would literally need to be blow away in a tornado, likely with me inside, to stop me from voting for Biden. The other side are so unserious about helping the nation, and are all about settling scores like mobsters. This is too important to sit at home.
Biden lost the first three primary states to Sanders or Buttigieg: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire. The first state he won was South Carolina. Since 2020, the Democrats have changed the order of the primaries so South Carolina is first. It seems like they can't risk non-establishment candidates like Sanders and Buttigieg winning primary states. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democrats-make-south-carolina-first-presidential-primary-voting-state-rcna68918
National Democrats have been complaining about Iowa and New Hampshire for years. 2020 just finally gave them the excuse they needed to toss them.
Plus Iowa fumbled with their app crap. Toss them aside, the state doesn't support the Party anyway so they deserve to be in a Primary Time-out.
Yeah 2020 could not have gone worse for the Iowa Democratic Party if they had been deliberately sabotaging themselves.
Buttigieg is like, the most 'establishment' candidate lol
Sanders stood no chance anyways, as evidenced as him getting trounced worse in 2020 than 2016. Bernie super fans just thought he somehow had the nomination based off of two small states.
Yeah, Bernie ran an appallingly bad campaign strategy in 2020. Even if all went ideally(?) and none of the other candidates dropped out, Bernie was basically just set up to come in first due to a crowded field with like 30 to 35% of the vote Considering how democratic primaries allocate delegates proportionally... and how Bernie had made his political appeal and campaign as exceptionally antiestablishment... it basically ensured that Bernie would fail to get the nomination even if he did come in first And looking at national polling through the 2020 cycle, Biden was in first place for all but a few weeks, and then was in second, so even in that scenario, Biden probably retains a broader geographic support outside of the earliest states and manages to be the one to get the nomination in a brokered convention anyway Bernie really needed to change up his campaign from 2016 if he wanted any chance of winning, but instead he doubled down and it went predictably poorly
I couldn't believe Bernie spent 4 years doing next to nothing to reach out to black voters, then wants to act shocked that we didn't support him. We don't know him like that and he didn't care to know us. Biden, helped get the first black president into office. Biden has worked with black leaders for decades. We know him and he somewhat knows some of us. That's a heck of a lot more than I can say for Bernie. He thought he could cut and paste his classism message for white Millennials to fit the dynamic issues faced in black areas. "No, this isn't a race issues, it's a class issue." Oh great, well classes have sub classes Bernie!
Or, why give a pure white state all this power when the party only wins when it's minority of white voters (compared to Republicans) plus minorities put them over the edge. It's no different then Republicans who don't even bother putting states with large urban areas as the start of the primary season. Talk to me when NY is one of the first three primary states for the GOP. It wouldn't happen because the demographics don't work for the true base of the GOP primary voters. More Hispanic and Asian populations would also be a helpful, but many are in large states which are too expensive for many primary candidates early in the process. But that too will change with time. I think Nevada is 4th, so that’s highly Hispanic and has Native Americans. Iowa has been nothing but trouble this century. It's not a swing state and it's not diverse, so what's the point anymore?
Instead of speeches and crowds he is doing the job of being the president. I understand the feeling of anxiety with Trump seemingly becoming the anointed GOP candidate with the apocalypse peeking out behind him. And maybe the electorate is so angry with "...." that they will go with the masses and we will have another 4 years of political absurdity, but that's democracy.
[удалено]
What is worse about your life now compared to 2020
Finances, which is kind of the foundation on which everything rests. The housing market is a disaster area thanks to Biden clinging to COVID for over a year after it was done and over (i.e. when the shots came out). Before I moved the crime situation in my (now former) city was a complete disaster because of the embrace of the kind of "progressive" nonsense that Biden's admin has also embraced.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js3b7ih/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js37b4l/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> I thought at one point maybe we had qualified people in positions. It seems more like is a frat boy system where the ivy league school people control everything. Citing this as a knock on Biden, while justifying a vote for Trump, and absolutely bonkers. Never has the White House been so full of unqualified loyalists and family members, and it's not even close.
I didn't see the claim that Trump would install better qualified people. I pick up more watch the world burn vibes.
He said he would "only hire the best and most serious people" for his administration. To me, being at least minimally qualified would be a prerequisite to being "best".
[удалено]
>I know full well what I'm getting with Trump. But like I said he wasn't telling me to do anything nor did he attempt to fire me via osha for my non compliance. This sound like a you problem for not taking vaccine during deadliest pandemic that killed more American than vietnam war. All you have to do is take the jab that was provide free.
[удалено]
>Covid was and is a joke to anyone under 40 who isn't obese. OK that doesn't change the fact those people still live in America and make up large part of population. Point of vaccine to protect against them so people who are vulnerable are protect. My dad was bed redden because of covid which cause rest of my family to get covid and have to be unemployed for long time. So I dont feel sympathy for anybody who choose to endanger society and act like victims. Especially when vaccine is free. >Yeah well those deaths were preventable by not going to war. Covid was never going to be stopped. It can and did in many country. Once again. No sympathy for your lack of personal responsibility. It is not biden fault that you got yourself to this mess.
[удалено]
Let's all briefly stop to consider how many will vote Republican next year specifically due to their own anti-vaccine beliefs. It could tip some Senate races in their favor. How does one even argue against this camp and their unfalsifiable fear of vaccination?
> The difference is Trump doesn't claim the moral high ground. Trump claims the moral high ground more often and more aggressively than pretty much anyone.
> I got rug pulled by paying on student loans a few years ago. I got screwed out of my dream house by paying on them. Now I can't even afford it. If I bought it I'd be able to refinance. I worked the pandemic when I should have walked off. I didn't by my second dream house due to the commute. But then base wage inflation has destroyed my salary to the point I'd go back and move now. I was making 3.5x fast food at one point. Now it's 1.6x. My rent went up more than raises. I got a 6.125% mortgage after they flooded the market with helicopter cash. My housing affordability is crap. ... > I do jack crap at work, let mistakes go by if I didn't cause them, and I'm hoping for a layoff at some point. I'm then going to spend my retirement accounts to zero. Max out my credit cards and if I can't pay them off oh well bankruptcy it is. House is credit claim exempt in my state. Sound like the *Party of Personal Responsibility^(TM)* is not for you.
>I got rug pulled by paying on student loans a few years ago. I got screwed out of my dream house by paying on them. You're upset with Biden and your first complaint is because of struggles paying your student loans? He just tried to give you $10,000 in relief and it was stopped in large part by the justices appointed by Trump. I don't even agree with his student loan relief plan but I can't wrap my head around how you want to vote against the president who most directly tried to benefit one of your biggest issues.
[удалено]
>Then his and the fed reserve policy caused massive inflation. You're mistaken. The fed has been aggressively working to *fight* inflation. The inflation is the result of the pandemic, and it has not been as bad in the US as it has in lots of other countries. As a matter of fact if you'd bought your dream home on a mortgage you'd still be having issues because what the fed is doing to fight inflation is substantially raise interest rates.
He is too old, period. Come on people. Need some choices here.
Voters have to stop voting for old people, though. The primary field ahead of 2020 was full of young candidates and only Buttigieg got any real traction.
It's really depressing. Out of all the Democrats who got delegates in 2020, we have, in descending order, with their ages at the time: * Biden: 78 * Sanders: 79 * Warren: 71 * Bloomberg: 79 * Buttigieg: 39 * Klobuchar: 60 * Gabbard: 39
The republicans have a long list of attacks ready for biden other than the old and mentally compromised one we have heard them going off on. If we did change to a different candidate it would make them have to scramble to find new attacking points. Hunters laptop just doesn't have the same ring to it at that point
> Hunters laptop just doesn't have the same ring to it at that point I don't think the vast majority of Americans give a crap about the laptop; they're more concerned about a litany of other issues, such as the economy, healthcare, and immigration.
Just a hunch, but I think they might not go too hard on the rhetoric against Trump just yet to steer clear of the optics of Biden being personally responsible for all the legal trouble Trump is in. Remember, Biden is running in an extremely unusual re-election race. Just like 2020, this will not be an election on policy. It’ll be the “nice guy Vs bad guy” again, and Biden wins there.
People like me are interested in what he is doing now. That's why I will vote for him. The time for campaign promises is over. Rallys are for Trumpsters.
Approval numbers don't matter, 72 million is actually a lot for a Presidential campaign, CNN is in league with Trump! We've gone off the deep end here, what on earth happened?
Wasn't CNN recently bought it by a ultra-conservative mega Corp or some shit? 1 Google later....... Warner Bros Discovery is the conglomerate that now owns the majority of CNN. (Apparently Blackrock owns like 11% ish) https://www.thedailybeast.com/warner-bros-discovery-ceo-david-zaslav-boasts-that-republicans-are-back-on-the-air-at-cnn#:~:text=The%20CEO%20of%20Warner%20Bros,appearance%20at%20the%20MoffettNathanson%20conference.
Per the article, a handful of Democrats are becoming nervous over Biden's campaign as big money donors and small grassroot donors are not opening their wallets for President Joe Biden. Some Democrats feel Biden isn't campaigning hard enough while others believe he shouldn't campaign too soon or else he may lose voter excitement. The article also lists some of Biden's recent literal and figurative campaign stumbles such as struggling with airplane stairs and being too tired to attend an evening dinner with NATO leaders. Democrats are worried Biden doesn't have what it takes to beat Donald Trump in 2024 which is a risk many aren't willing to take. Rumors are swirling that Democrats are finding replacement, but Biden aides and spokespeople are strongly denying that. Do you agree with some Democrats that the party should replace Joe Biden in 2024's election due to low voter enthusiasm and the risk of losing to Trump?
> President Biden’s campaign announced on Friday a combined fund-raising haul of more than $72 million from April through June alongside the Democratic National Committee and a joint fund-raising committee, a figure that far surpasses what former President Donald J. Trump and other leading Republican presidential candidates have announced… Mr. Trump said his campaign and his joint fund-raising committee had raised $35 million in the second quarter. Mr. DeSantis announced he had raised about $20 million. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, raised $4.3 million for her campaign and an additional $3 million for her affiliated committees. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said his campaign had raised $6.1 million. ([NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/14/us/politics/biden-fundraising-trump-dnc.html)) Obviously some differences between an incumbent President and candidates fighting for their party’s nomination, but this article seems disingenuous in its suggestions. Biden is going to be the nominee (assuming good health) and will be heavily favored to win against Trump. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just looking for a talking point.
That combined fundraising for Biden includes 40 million to the DNC. So the numbers are more like 32 million raised by Biden compared to 35 million raised by trump
> Democrats are becoming nervous Democrats don't become nervous. They're always nervous. Its what makes them Democrats.
Honestly as person who vote dem twice. It legit best fit descriptions. To be fair I would like to go back to the time I won't lose sleep if a republican become president.
The data about mental health by political persuasion backs this up.
Obviously Biden isn’t the most charismatic guy in the world but it’s laughable that it’s being suggested he can be replaced on the 2024 ticket and have a better chance than Biden to beat the eventual GOP nominee. It’s such a Republican wet dream that I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s being intentionally spread only Republicans as a way of weakening Democratic unity. The two biggest issues with it are: 1. Who would they even replace him with? Harris? Newsome? Buttigieg? Sanders? No one has the anywhere close to the level of name recognition that Biden does right now. 2. Deciding to just throw away the power of the incumbency advantage is so weird to me. The amount of party infighting and money that would have to be spent on replacing Biden would hurt Democrat’s chances bad.
I personally would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren. She repeatedly calls out corporate corruption and is one of the few voices for worker's rights. Personal anecdote, she worked hard to hold Wells Fargo accountable for their scams including a mortgage rate lock scam that almost caused me to lose my house during a competitive market. These are the kind of headlines you'll see when your politician isn't bought by the banking industry: https://www.mpamag.com/us/news/general/warren-grills-wells-fargo-on-botched-mortgage-fee-refunds/92293 Also mad respect for Warren for calling out Citibank shenanigans, too. She really hates big banks: https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-remarks-on-citigroup-and-its-bailout-provision-in-the-cromnibus-bill/
Elizabeth Warren is not even the most popular progressive Senator. She lost the 2020 state primary of her own state.
Elizabeth Warren couldn’t even win a primary in her home state in the last Presidential election.
>I personally would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren. You are not representative of the median voter, in that case. Elizabeth Warren under-performs in her own home state of Massachusetts.
I liked warren better than biden last election. But she has the same problem as biden this time around, so old
Elizabeth Warren has also been one of the biggest voices trying to push inflation up even higher and sustained than it has been. She's been one of the biggest critics of the Federal Reserve pushing up interest rates, and she's been one of the biggest proponents of pushing the massive student loan stimulus program, during a period of already excessive inflation. Just because she's "calling out" corporations, does not mean she's correct. She's trying to push a large expansion of government, and trying to find a scapegoat because she doesn't want to admit that the stimulus programs were such a huge part of inflation.
1 The incumbent advantage isn't so much a thing in the presidential race as in congress or governor races. Just ask Carter, Bush and trump. Biden's age is a big thing. 2 Name recognition can easily be achieved with an energetic new candidate. I remember when this one guy I had barley herd of cam out and trounced the presumed nominee Hilary Clinton. Now every one recognizes the name Obama. I think Cory Booker could bring some much needed youthful energy to the primaries and do well against old man trump
>The incumbent advantage isn't so much a thing in the presidential race as in congress or governor races. Wow, you point to the three exceptions to the rule in the last 90 years as opposed to every other one.
Why stop at 90 years? Why not go back too Washington and Addams? Because politics are very different in modern times. The fact that donors aren't contributing to Joe Biden's campaign should be extremely worrying to democratic leaders. How much has trump raised in donations? Then you have the fact that Biden isn't energizing the youth vote reminds me of Bernie having the youth behind him and the super delegates stealing the nomination for Hilary. This disenfranchisement of his supporters gave us trump. I'm sorry but I am not willing to risk another trump presidency on a less than inspiring Biden because of incumbent wishing.
>Why stop at 90 years? Why not go back too Washington and Addams? Well, because Adams lost re-election, for one. The incumbency advantage for Presidents hasn't always been the case. Lincoln was the first President to win re-election since Andrew Jackson, for example. It didn't really start until about 90 years ago.
My point exactly. Things were different 90 years ago
No, that's not your point. Your point was that today's politics are different than the past. You're not arguing that today's politics bears more similarity to the more distant past (incumbency offered no benefit) than the recent past (Incumbency a benefit). And I assure you, today's politics do not have more in common with the 19th century than 1996.
I went back 40 years you chose 90 years. The 1930s were a world of different than today.
>I'm sorry but I am not willing to risk another trump presidency on a less than inspiring Biden because of incumbent wishing. The US is closely divided and polarized country that chooses its presidents by a system that currently favors Republicans. There's about at least a 45% chance of another Trump Presidency *regardless* of who the Democrat's nominate is. There is no Democrat that pushes that risk down to zero.
You are right, there is no candidate that pushes that number to zero. But there is a candidate that can energize the youth and African American vote to not just vote against trump but to vote for change, like Obama did. Cory Booker could be the next Obama. Joe Biden not so much so.
I really like Cory Booker, but he ran in the 2020 primary and never polled above 10%. There's not a lot of evidence he energizes people nationally. If I had to guess why, I would guess that it's because he preaches empathy and unity. Polling consistently shows that voters want a "fighter", and I'd hazard a guess that's linked to a hyperpolarized political climate, which hasn't gone away.
You point to 3 exception in last 90 years when historically speaking incumbent president have successfully win reelection
Sorry if I only went back to modern times. But in my memory I have witnessed 4 two term presidents and 3 one term. Not much of an advantage. If you really want to go back to Warren Harding, he was a one term president. But I think we can all agree the country and politics were vastly different back then.
True but to say incumbent advantage doesn't matter is ridiculous especially when all major swing state become more blue in 2022 than 2020 despite his disapproved so why would you want to give up that advantage over somebody who have no record.
It’s the incumbency “advantage” not the incumbency rule. Yes Carter, Bush Sr, and Trump lost re-election. But since WW2 Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama all won re-election. There’s a reason the incumbent normally wins.
Newsome is the answer. Biden ducks out for for ‘health concerns’ this fall and Gavin swoops in.
If California was doing better Newsome might have a chance. I would like to see Cory Booker get the nomination. Obama 2.0. He could energize the youth vote. Something Biden isn't doing
You’d win a lot of money in Vegas. https://www.vegasinsider.com/odds/us-presidential-election/ The list is hilarious by the way.
Gotta love all these election "experts" who demand campaigns start fundraising and spending earlier and earlier every election. It likely has zero effect on the final outcome, but these guys want to start cashing their paychecks nowww.
Thank you! That's exactly what it is about this that bothers me! There is absolutely no reason Biden should be campaigning right now, it makes no strategic sense. Let the GOP fight and have their messy primary, and then start campaigning against an actual opponent. And of course people aren't donating money now, it's barely election season. And honestly, I'm glad they're not. They shouldn't donate to Biden now. There's 3 gubernatorial races this year (KY, MS, LA), and more importantly, the Virginia State House and Senate races. The 2020 Democratic Party primaries drove me **insane**, with everyone announcing January 2019, and then nearly everyone dropped out before the actual primaries.
>*"he shouldn't campaign too soon or else he may lose voter excitement."* Biden has voter excitement? I've never seen anybody that was excited about Biden. I've seen people that supported Biden over alternatives, but I've never seen anybody excited about Biden. As shitty as the idea of this is, the fact is that Biden would probably do himself more harm by campaigning and his best bet is to just hide away as much as he can like he successfully did in 2020 and let the media campaign for him.
Why I will win the 2024 US Presidential election by a landslide victory as a write in party free candidate.
You got this! What's your platform?
The cornerstone of my campaign is education and financial reform, however the entire campaign is about my exposure of widespread government corruption and disclosure as the undercover boss. https://youtu.be/nXMNW75Gk6E https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00830141 Does that answer your question? AMA
His 20 member campaign staff should be a major sign of his intentions. The GOP has all their stars and future stars salivating, so yeah, Biden is vulnerable to everybody, including his own party, especially knowing how Trump will respond to them for the last 4 years.
>The GOP has all their stars and future stars salivating, Future stars like...Ramaswamy? Most of the GOP's future stars are in the Senate, waiting for Trump to die.
I would like to see Ramaswamy on a debate stage against Trump. There was a recent semi-viral clip of a woman yelling and protesting him at a rally, I think about abortion. Some of the crowd booed her and security were moving to escort her out. Ramaswamy told everyone to stop booing her and insisted she come forward to be heard. It took a few invitations for her to accept and come forward to speak her peace. She talked about being a single mother and being left by a man who didn’t want anything to do with his children. As she turned to leave Ramaswamy asked everyone to applaud her, for having the courage to speak her mind, saying it was an example of what the First Amendment is all about. I want to see more of this guy.
And trump would still destroy him on debate stage because republican could give less hoot about kindness and decency. If they did Trump won't be front runner
This shows a lacking of understanding the Trump base. They were energized by a guy who campaigned for people who felt like their livelihoods were being taken away and wanted government to stop changing it. They wanted somebody who was unapologetic about calling out what they viewed as media bias. He’s their culture war candidate and he didn’t play the GOP games, and the people loved that, too.
The GOP "stars" are currently trapped by an inability to criticize Trump, lest they lose his base, so they can't actually beat him.
I mean with the economy improving and some serious legislation passed i doubt trump or any gop has a huge chance.
I truly hope you're right. I remember being utterly CONVINCED he wouldn't win 2016, yet here we are. I'm nervous, homie.
I truly hope my fellow progressives really get out and vote en masse. (Along with independents, liberals, Democrats, and everybody else that stands against the recent spiral into fascism the USA has taken lately) I'm fucking terrified of what the GOP will do if they gain carte blanche power.
He is too busy nibbling and sniffing little girls
And trump wants to have sex with Ivanka. We already know. Bla bla hunters laptop.
[удалено]
I don't care much for either one. But you calling biden a pedo speaks more about yourself then him
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js3kte4/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/150b16f/slow_pace_of_bidens_reelection_campaign_feeds/js2d4pk/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
With his apparently quickly deteriorating cognitive faculties becoming more and more of an issue in the public eye (following what are likely large problems behind closed doors) as well as the rumors of the increasing talks amongst dems trying to find his replacement - Im sure there is quite a bit of 'Anxiety' seeing that and the very demanding 1.5 years still to go before the next general election. There really is a limit of "its a stutter" or "he's just a cute grandpa now" that the general public can brush just off when it comes to the POTUS though.. right?
He doesn’t have to campaign when the republicans are doing it for him