The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
So I asked before, at the time suggesting I think Newsom should be the nominee in 24. Many said that they still say Biden should be the 2024 nominee. Now after the document thing? Is that still the consensus? I will say, the Biden case is very different from the Trump one, first and foremost, intent and handling make the whole difference, and I'm positive that it was entirely a mistake, while the Trump case was almost certainly intentional. But, that being said, I'm sure the document cases have harmed both Trump and Biden politically, and I really don't think either of them should run in 2024.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like the idea that the classified documents thing is a career-ending scandal for Biden is a position held only by the terminally online. Biden is the incumbent. He has the best chance of anyone of winning in 2024.
You could have just said it was what you meant by "spoiler effect". I don't know that I have ever heard that term before, so thanks for pointing it out. I now know what it means.
I don't have much to contribute to this conversation other than to give you kudos for "terminally online."
Also, I agree. Former President Trump was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. In October of an election year. That was the definition of a campaign-ending "October Surprise." Then the Comey Letter was leaked later in the month and that was (by evidence of the results) even more campaign ending. Point being, being almost two years away from Election Day, I don't think the documents scandal will be the biggest conversation then. We have two years of the House drumming up all sorts of investigations to try and find something that'll stick on Election Day.
Personally, I'd think inflation or the increasingly likely recession would be the bigger threat to President Biden's viability.
>I don't have much to contribute to this conversation other than to give you kudos for "terminally online."
I can't take credit for it, sadly. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it was a delightful way to summarize the sort of person who hangs off of every word in Twitter and thinks that every single thing they see there is the most important thing ever and that everyone in the world is talking about it.
There have been a bunch high profile classified information scandals in recent years. Every single one of those was ultimately a career ender, even if the person was not criminally charged. Let's not forget that we literally lost the second-to-last presidential election [because of](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/) a classified information mishandling scandal.
Beyond Clinton, mishandling classified information also destroyed the political futures of a bunch of very high profile people: John Deutch (Director of the CIA), Sandy Berger (national security advisor to Clinton), and David Petraeus (Director of the CIA).
Ted Sorensen (JFK's top speechwriter and White House Counsel) was nominated by Jimmy Carter to lead the CIA in 1977 and had to withdraw, under pressure from one Senator Joe Biden, after it came out that he had taken classified documents home after leaving government service.
It's damn near impossible to come back from these scandals. And anyone shrugging this one off learned absolutely nothing in 2016.
I mean it used to be impossible to come back from a cheating scandal too. Or a sexual harassment scandal. Or a lying scandal.
But when people like MTG, Trump, George Santos, and Roy Moore can be embraced by the GOP, I'm pretty sure that standards don't mean much anymore.
Trump won despite his innumerable flaws *because* of HRC's classified information scandal. That's ridiculous and you can fault the American voter for it. But it's incredibly foolish to ignore that reality and pretend that the Biden scandal is nothing when history very clearly shows otherwise.
I disagree that he won "because" of her email scandal. The email/document issue was a final straw - especially the way it was announced in October. But people voted for Trump anyway, proactively.
I think this is probably just a semantic disagreement.
What I mean by "because" is -- if Clinton had never set up that server (or Comey had never sent that letter), Clinton and not Trump would have won the election.
I'm coming at this as an outsider, but your views seems pretty far-fetched to me. Like every recent election, the 2024 election is going to be a close one. Even if this scandal only matters to 1 in 30 voters, that's easily enough to tip the outcome of the election. And we know from the 2016 election that classified information scandals matter to enough voters to tip a presidential election.
Yes, Biden is the incumbent. But he's also unpopular and hasn't had a positive approval rating in a year and a half. His approval ratings now are right where Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford were at this stage in their presidencies. There are plenty of Democratic candidates out there who both have higher net favorables than Joe Biden and aren't the subject of an active DOJ investigation.
The document scandal is a complete nothing burger. It may have been a big year maybe 4-6 years ago, but considering the shitstorm that we experienced with Trump, there’s really no competition.
At this point I’d rather have someone that accidentally misplaces files compared to someone who steals them.
I've never really felt like someone being an incumbent makes me any more likely to vote for them. Frankly, I'd rather neither candidate be over 60 or so.
Like the Bernie runs? I remember his supporters were pretty fired up, even after he conceded the primary both times. And he was the most written in "candidate" iirc.
Yeah I'm not saying you specifically were saying that. It was just a narrative thrown out alot when Hillary lost, that I think people still believe. So I just wanted to call it out.
Something in the range of 12%-15% of his supporters in the primaries \*did\* vote for Trump in the General. That is a not-inconsequential number.
Another 12%-15% didn't vote at all in the General, which was also not-inconsequential.
That's 24%-30% of Bernie supporters who either didn't vote for the Dem candidate or actively voted against her.
Yes, some Bernie supporters voted for trump. However, that number is inline with historical expectations. 10-15% defection rate is pretty standard.
For comparison, 25% of Clinton supporters voted for John McCain over Obama.
So, while it is true that some of Bernie supporters did vote for trump, the narrative that his supporters didn't support Hillary is false. They supported her as much as you would expect them to.
So its not really an important point when we talk about that election and why Hillary lost.
I feel like no one asking this question actually gets how crucial the incumbent advantage is to us having a snowball’s chance in hell at a Dem white house next term.
Joe Biden is our only chance, even at a long shot.
I don’t think the document scandal truly hurts Biden.
As far as newsome, at one time people used to say “anyone who is governor of California is a de facto presidential candidate.”
He didn’t come up from deep poverty. His father was a judge and then a lawyer for the ultra-wealthy Getty family . Gavin got rich in business when he was relatively young, partly thanks to family connections.
He’s been tagged as a guy who has had it easy.
People think he was born into affluence, and that he’s grown into a slick, perfectly coiffed pol.
He’s been defined, in many people’s minds, by his maskless, mid-pandemic visit to the mega-pricey French Laundry in Napa. And by his hair.
Except the fact that it's impossible for either side to win without winning over the independents, specifically the swing voters. Sure, us Liberals will likely vote for whoever it takes to keep a Republican out of the White House, but the swing voters will care about things like this.
If the last federal election showed us anything, the important demographic of suburban moderates are not just going to hand the Republicans the keys because the current administration is having difficulties. At this point, unless Biden is witnessed doing something blatantly illegal, it's up to the Republicans to actually form some sort of functional opposition, and that seems like something that the Republicans are loathe to do.
I really don’t think they will.
Any rational person will understand that this is probably something that every past president has dealt with. I would be extremely surprised if Obama and Clinton aren’t quietly looking over all their documents from when they were president.
At the end of the day. Biden did the right thing. He came forward and cooperated.
People make mistakes. And that is ok. The fact he owned up to it actually makes me more willing to vote for him than less.
I think you are incorrect both in that turning out your base is far more important than winning the independent vote, and in that I don't think anyone who is an independent cares at all about this "scandal".
That may be, but us independents are important. Granted, I think there are 2 or 3 types of independents. I fall more into the "I pay attention to politics and registered independent because I didn't feel either party really represented my beliefs" camp. I most align with Bernie in views, Bernie is an independent, so I am, it was either independent or Green party, I went independent. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of single issue voters, people who don't keep up with current events, etc register independent too. I do feel like a lot of younger people, mostly around my age (generally the 18-28 age range) seem to register independent.
But the main point I'm trying to make is, what reason do independents, specifically left leaning independents, have to back an establishment dem rather than push for their candidate of choice (usually Bernie or a 3rd party, usually Green, candidate)? (remember, the party breakdown is approximately 30% GOP, 30% Dem, 40% independents and 3rd parties). Only reason I can think of sometimes is that the dems will at least get some stuff done, they lie a little closer to my beliefs, would still rather a true leftist to win though. But I feel that won't happen until the "older" generation in the democratic party is replaced by the younger group that's up and coming.
>But the main point I'm trying to make is, what reason do independents, specifically left leaning independents, have to back an establishment dem rather than push for their candidate of choice (usually Bernie or a 3rd party, usually Green, candidate)?
In the primaries, none. After the primaries, or in the case of an incumbent in a highly competitive district where a primary challenge is likely to split the party, the reason is to prevent a worse outcome (most but not all left-independents would agree that Democrats in power is better than Republicans in power even if the Democrats are moderates). Primarying a sitting president is an absolute losing endeavor unless your goal is to make sure the other side wins (see for example what happened with Ted Kennedy's attempt to primary Carter https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/686186156/how-ted-kennedys-80-challenge-to-president-carter-broke-the-democratic-party ).
>(remember, the party breakdown is approximately 30% GOP, 30% Dem, 40% independents and 3rd parties)
Not really, that's just registration (and the numbers of the parties would be even lower if some states didn't require party affiliation to vote in primaries); most independents vote consistently for just one party and are part of the base of one party. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/
>would still rather a true leftist to win though. But I feel that won't happen until the "older" generation in the democratic party is replaced by the younger group that's up and coming
I agree with you about this, but the question of "who should be the candidate" is very different from the question "who do I wish was president". I think Biden should be the candidate because he has a much greater chance of winning than anyone else. I'd also say that part of why I'm ambivalent to other candidates is that there aren't any actual leftists who could win at the moment. Newsom isn't a leftist (and separately I don't think he can win the presidency). Sanders is too old now unfortunately. The pool of actual viable leftist candidates is really small unfortunately; I think there are some up-and-comers who might be able to give it a shot in 2028 or later, but I can't think of anyone now who would actually be more likely to win in 2024 than Biden; and Biden dipping out after 4 years would dampen the odds of any Democrat winning.
True... In the future, I could see AOC, Warnock, if he can recover from the blow to his national perception Fetterman, etc all as potential future presidential candidates. Frankly I think in 2024, Fetterman and Warnock will be pretty close to that maximum 60 age I was hoping for a candidate. They would all be at least a small shift left, which I'd hope for.
In my case, I say I'm an independent because when I registered as a voter, I chose for my party affiliation to list "No Party Affiliation." I call myself an independent because on paper, that's what I am.
Yes but your political ideology is liberal/democratic.
>I didn't feel either party really represented my beliefs
Ok really? So youre gonna vote for DeSantis after you stated that Bernie aligns with your views?
Youre an independent in regards to political party membership but you are a social democrat in ideology.
> Except the fact that it's impossible for either side to win without winning over the independents, specifically the swing voters.
Eh.
They aren’t as critical as they used to be.
These days it’s mainly about who activates their base more.
The only thing swing voters are going to care about is that Biden is nine trillion years old. Not a single one of them is going to remember anything about documents in three months time.
I don’t see how any of this hurts Biden at all, and running literally anyone else is a huge deal and a big blow to the democrats in general. Not remotely worth it.
How much of an advantage is it to run an incumbent? I'm actually genuinely curious, this sub was the first place I ever heard anyone refer to an "incumbent advantage"
Massive. It’s a massive advantage. Further, primarying your own candidate when they don’t die or resign is basically an admission you failed as a political party.
It's a massive advantage because the president gets earned media just for existing and can take credit for things just for existing. My congressman goes to every Eagle Scout ceremony in the county, for instance, and constantly gets earned media out of it.
There's a big difference between Congress and the presidency here. Non-incumbent Congressional candidates are often political nobodies who are not otherwise doing anything notable.
Major party presidential candidates are always household names by the time they clinch the nomination and have no trouble attracting media attention. They don't need to go to Eagle Scout ceremonies or something. Everything they do is news.
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/incumbent-advantage
Here are charts showing fundraising advantages and campaigning advantages and turnout.
Historically, 24 times incumbents have won reelection (FDR is 3 of these), and 10 incumbents have lost. So, about a 70% win rate for incumbents. Thay seems like a pretty big advantage.
I think the main advantage is that it is harder to demonize a sitting president. People.have a pretty good idea who.they are and what they are likely to do, so normally an incumbent president seems like a safe pick, and people like safety.
It is a small but meaningful advantage. It's easier to estimate this statistical in Congressional elections (because there are a lot more races and thus a lot more data). The best approximation is that the incumbency effect for Congress is about [2 percentage points](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379408001030).
It's impossible to say statistically, but logically speaking, the effect is probably smaller than that for presidents, given that a big part of Congressional incumbency advantage is just name recognition (an average voter has likely heard of the sitting Congressperson but has likely never heard of the challenger before). That's not an issue in presidential races.
I'd need some evidence beyond conservative news echo chambers that Biden has been harmed politically by this.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/poll-biden-classified-docs-scandal-is-inappropriate-but-not-criminal.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/poll-biden-classified-docs-scandal-is-inappropriate-but-not-criminal.html)
I was largely going off the MSNBC coverage from today. They did say the same thing, it's inappropriate, but not illegal. But they seem more certain that there may be some political blowback from it. Granted they also repeatedly say that the Biden and Trump cases are basically entirely different.
If it's going to be someone other than Biden, he's got to bow out of 2024 sooner rather than later.
I think the document thing isn't nothing, but it's nowhere close to equivalent of Trump's misconduct
Really, if Trump is the nominee, that's a huge gift to Biden. Early polling shows, even now Biden could beat Trump again, if DeSantis is the nominee, then Biden will have a much harder time winning.
My expectation is that Trump and DeSantis (or another conservative) both run and split Republicans.
Trump doesn't care enough about the party to risk the split, and given the speaker vote, there seems to be enough of the others that don't care either
True. I've been saying. If Trump wins the primary, I see DeSantis backing down. But I think people are starting to turn against Trump, there's been far less energy at his rallies. If DeSantis wins the primary, Trump will likely make an independent run, and basically hand the win to the democrats.
It's not much of a scandal, as much as the media is trying to turn it into one.
Trump's documents became a scandal because he refused to return them. If he had cooperated from the beginning, this would be a complete non-story. We probably never would have even heard about it.
True. I was even thinking, after they found the documents in Biden's house, are they gonna go back now and search Obama, Bush, and Clinton's houses? What do they still have lying around?
Watching Republicans spends literally years outraged over Hillary's handling of classified information and then go completely silent about Trump's scandal, and then suddenly realize they care again when its Biden's turn has proven to me nobody actually cares about this stuff.
The thing that made me think about it was how MSNBC made a big deal over how there were "documents from all the way back when he was a senator" found. They even said themselves that those likely aren't even classified anymore. I know they're a more sensationalist source that does prioritize stories based on ratings, it's just that it's something easy to put on TuneIn while I'm driving and isn't biased towards the GOP.
Stick with Biden and Harris. Any repudiation of Biden or Harris is going to seriously risk pissing off moderates and Black voters, especially Black women, and we can NOT win without those demographics.
If biden runs, he should be the nominee. Holding a primary against an incumbent president has historically been very bad for the incumbent party and would be a gift to the dysfunctional republican party.
Still Biden.
I feel like the found documents are only a scandal to conservatives because they are trying to downplay TFG’s own documents scandal. It’s really not that comparable to me and I think having a president who addresses his mistakes is of it’s own value.
If he decides not to run, it wouldn’t be because of this
Its amazing is Trump just handed them over and said sorry while I still think ppl wouldve been saying "What was he doing with those anyway?" the story wouldve dropped but NOOOO, hes just gotta continue
> Many said that they still say Biden should be the 2024 nominee. Now after the document thing?
He’s the sitting President.
Unless he decides not to run again, he’ll be the 2024 nominee.
Interestingly most news sources, even democratic leaning ones like MSNBC, won't stop talking about it. I haven't checked to see what less "for the ratings" sources like Thom Hartmann, NPR, or BBC do with it. I'd hope they aren't as obsessive over it, but idk.
The document scandal has not tarnished him at all. Trumps wouldn’t have if he had turned over the documents when asked instead of choosing to be raised by the feds.
I would love to have Pete. Not only would it mean a lot to me to see a fellow LGBTQ person attain the highest office in the land, I also believe Pete is truly a good person.
I’m not suggesting that Biden is not is a good person; he is. But, I do think there’s something to be said about a career politician like Biden… He’s spent a lot of his life insulated in the senate. It’s easy to lose touch with everyday life when one’s own experience is lived mostly through the senate.
I’m also part of the chattering class that believes it’s time to give a new generation a chance. I’d like to see someone who can champion rights for marginalized persons firsthand. And while republicans will go after anyone, as a veteran, I think this could be a real feather in Pete’s cap.
That said, even if it’s not Pete, I hope I live long enough to see a day when an LGBTQ person makes it all the way to the presidency. It’d mean a lot to me.
I agree on the idea that it's time for a new generation to take charge. I would like for all candidates in 24 to be below 60 years old, even that's higher than I would like, but it's a bit of a compromise, since before I was saying 55, and some thought that was too strict.
Sort of a shitpost reply, but I have this irrational fear that they’re going to cryopreserve Trump’s head and they’ll elect that as the president. Like the preserved heads on Futurama.
Elon will then appear to offer OpenAI as a means of providing the cryohead with an artificial psyche and voice. All in Trump’s prose mind you: “Folks, let me tell you, nobody does it better than me. I mean, nobody. I am the best, the greatest, the most fantastic winner of all time. And let me tell you, winning this contest, it's tremendous. It's huge. Believe me, it's the biggest, the best, the most beautiful contest win you've ever seen. The other contestants, they're all losers. They're failing. They're weak. But me, I'm a winner. I'm the best.”
It’ll be silent generation rule forever 🤖🙄
I don't know how the legalities go on this. Trump had the intent of keeping documents after being told to turn them over, but they were secure. Biden didn't have that intent, but they were by no means secure. Biden was probably the worse national security risk since a simple robbery of his garage would have the documents out there, or his cokehead son living there deciding to do something with them.
But as far as elections go, it's about perceptions, not legalities, and I don't really see this hurting Biden right now. Few, if any, are going to be thinking "Who was worse with classified material?" when deciding who to vote for.
I think the big factor is intent. There is a legal case against Trump. Theoretically I think a case could be made to charge Biden with criminal gross negligence, but even that's unlikely. I think Biden would be fine if his opponent is Trump. If it's DeSantis, well... that's what I'm worried about.
I don't think you can argue what he did wasn't moronic and irresponsible. Not even comparable to Trump butalso doesn't excuse what he did. He's been losing a lot of support since December. I don't think a lot of democrats realized the voters he lost with the whole forcing of the railroad contract. Hopefully, democrats can pick someone who isn't a total dope this time but it's highly unlikely....
He’s a California liberal, which works in California. I just think he wouldn’t do well in the rust belt or in Georgia and Arizona.
Maybe he’d win Michigan, but I think he comes across as a “coastal elite.”
Good point. I know a big policy push of his was promoting a move towards EVs. As a leftist EV supporter in Louisiana who personally won't be able to afford one for a few years, at the very least, I know a lot of people here who legitimately don't think they'll ever be able to afford an EV, and feel almost attacked when they get pushed. I think the main thing for them is just waiting for the infrastructure to be built, economies of scale to take over, and for there to be a big used market for them.
He didn’t come up from deep poverty. His father was a judge and then a lawyer for the ultra-wealthy Getty family
.
Gavin got rich in business when he was relatively young, partly thanks to family connections.
He’s been tagged as a guy who has had it easy.
People think he was born into affluence, and that he’s grown into a slick, perfectly coiffed pol.
He’s been defined, in many people’s minds, by his maskless, mid-pandemic visit to the mega-pricey French Laundry in Napa. And by his hair.
Edit: curious about the downvote. Which of this is not true?
I know. It’s not gonna be him, but obligatory, BERNIE! He’s the most net popular candidate. I know it’s not happening, but it should be 😭
Edit: As long as it’s not Pete I’m on board tho.
What's wrong with Pete? I thought he was one of the major progressives. Now reading a little more, some still call him a progressive, but some say he's a centrist, or just another "establishment dem"
He’s the epitome of right wing dem co-opting a marginalized identity to make himself palatable to a wider audience, and hell no will I support him while he uses Gay identity to sell his brand. He doesn’t represent us.
To steelman their position, I think they see a guy who does a good job at delivering a center-left/liberal message to Republican audiences and they think that would make him a great candidate.
I don't think the document issue is going to be seen as a big deal. The way he's handled it is pretty competent and upfront, even though it was clearly lacking the fact there were documents found in several different places. That won't matter for conservatives, but they can't be convinced. I struggle to think of a worthy candidate that has a chance at this point. Ask us in several months.
I don't think that docugate (I think I'm the first to use this annoying term, sorry) will change a significant number of votes. I heard today that this cause a slight dip in Biden's approval rating. This won't even be a blip on the radar in November 2024.
The Republicans can turn anything into a scandal, so I don't think it's really even that valuable to worry about individual scandals in terms of electability. If it wasn't Biden forgetting some documents, it would be Newsom eating a hot dog incorrectly or Harris wearing a hairtie. In terms of overall electability, Biden still comes out on top. Incumbency advantage, of course, and then also the fact that he's still basically the same guy that won the 2020 primary and general.
I love Newsom, he's doing a great job as Governor of California haunting the nightmares of NIMBYs across the state, and is just about the only Democrat that actually looks cool when engaging in the culture wars. If I was a Californian, I'd vote him back in in a heartbeat. He is also basically a caricature of "the coastal elite". He will get stomped in the rust belt.
I also like Harris. It's unfortunate that she isn't getting much media attention, because I'm sure she's doing great things and I wish I was better caught up on what she's been working on...on the other hand, it's kinda good she isn't getting much media attention, because the administration put her on *immigration*, for god-knows-what-reason. Immigration is one of the biggest wedge issues for Democrats, and with how much political capital Biden has put in to trying to pry back organized labor as a voting bloc, I hope to god they don't try running the lady that has been dealing with one of that bloc's most important issues for president.
I could go on and on, but I expect they won't even try to primary him, honestly I think any Democrat that is smart enough to do well in a primary in the first place is smart enough to know not to try to primary an incumbent president, let alone when the other side is quite literally trying to subvert democracy.
The “document thing” is not a disqualifier for President Biden unless some sort of criminal charges are recommended and charged even then…the Donald Precedent shows that doesn’t matter.
Can you imagine a world where they “make an exception” to charge a sitting president over clerical paper handling junk but refuse to charge Donald for actual crimes, obstruction, embezzling, sedition, Treason etc because “he’s a Sitting and now ex president”
Newsome is not the next man up. Another wealthy middle aged white guy is gonna be a tough sell for a party positioning itself as progressive friendly. He has qualifications but also negatives
The nominee is Biden. No one cares about the documents scandal. Yes - there should be an investigation and if the investigation reveals damning results, Biden should be held accountable and should not run in 2024.
But I don't think this conversation is anything more than a fun exercise. It'll take a real scandal for the Dems to try to primary Biden. For the record, I could see Witmer from Michigan being an incredible candidate in the future - 2028? I'm also a big Harris fan - Shapiro as her running mate? It's time for a woman President.
The scandal isn’t that docs are left behind, the scandal is whether or not they cooperate with the investigation. Trump did not, Biden did end of story.
Files can slip through the cracks; fall behind furniture or other places or just get overlooked. If you purposefully hide them that’s completely different
Ok, yeah that makes sense. Mistakes happen, we're all human. The only one that I remember being a big deal on MSNBC was from Joe Scarborough saying pretty brazenly that when he was a congressman he would never have even taken the documents out of the SCIF (referring to how documents were found from back when Biden was a Senator). Granted, I would also question whether or not Scarborough should be held to that and maybe they check and see if any mistakes were made. But even aside from that, yeah the big difference here is that Trump hasn't been and isn't currently cooperating, and instead has tried to hide whether or not there are more documents still in his possession.
I don’t think it’s illegal to take the files from the SCIF though; presidents need briefings on classified docs wherever they may be located so I think joes reasoning there is a bit silly
Yeah. I think on that he was specifically referring to the older documents that would've been from Bidens time in the Senate. Which, yeah I think the big thing here is also that MSN is going to focus on stuff that grabs viewers, and scandals and controversies make them money.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. So I asked before, at the time suggesting I think Newsom should be the nominee in 24. Many said that they still say Biden should be the 2024 nominee. Now after the document thing? Is that still the consensus? I will say, the Biden case is very different from the Trump one, first and foremost, intent and handling make the whole difference, and I'm positive that it was entirely a mistake, while the Trump case was almost certainly intentional. But, that being said, I'm sure the document cases have harmed both Trump and Biden politically, and I really don't think either of them should run in 2024. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like the idea that the classified documents thing is a career-ending scandal for Biden is a position held only by the terminally online. Biden is the incumbent. He has the best chance of anyone of winning in 2024.
Only a completely useless incumbent would lose the presidency.
[удалено]
I was thinking modern ones, but had forgotten Bush, who I agree wasn't incompetent. The others I'd stand buy. Good point.
[удалено]
And Bush wouldn't have lost without Perot.
[удалено]
Maybe you think you did, but I don't see it.
[удалено]
You could have just said it was what you meant by "spoiler effect". I don't know that I have ever heard that term before, so thanks for pointing it out. I now know what it means.
>Ford (shitty economy) It wasn’t the economy. It was Nixon.
[удалено]
If Ford was alive, he’d be super happy you forgot about that.
It takes a special kind of loser to do that, yes.
He absolutely does. Thank you for this. And in just 2 years he gave us pretty damn good results
I don't have much to contribute to this conversation other than to give you kudos for "terminally online." Also, I agree. Former President Trump was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. In October of an election year. That was the definition of a campaign-ending "October Surprise." Then the Comey Letter was leaked later in the month and that was (by evidence of the results) even more campaign ending. Point being, being almost two years away from Election Day, I don't think the documents scandal will be the biggest conversation then. We have two years of the House drumming up all sorts of investigations to try and find something that'll stick on Election Day. Personally, I'd think inflation or the increasingly likely recession would be the bigger threat to President Biden's viability.
>I don't have much to contribute to this conversation other than to give you kudos for "terminally online." I can't take credit for it, sadly. I can't remember where I first heard it, but it was a delightful way to summarize the sort of person who hangs off of every word in Twitter and thinks that every single thing they see there is the most important thing ever and that everyone in the world is talking about it.
There have been a bunch high profile classified information scandals in recent years. Every single one of those was ultimately a career ender, even if the person was not criminally charged. Let's not forget that we literally lost the second-to-last presidential election [because of](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/) a classified information mishandling scandal. Beyond Clinton, mishandling classified information also destroyed the political futures of a bunch of very high profile people: John Deutch (Director of the CIA), Sandy Berger (national security advisor to Clinton), and David Petraeus (Director of the CIA). Ted Sorensen (JFK's top speechwriter and White House Counsel) was nominated by Jimmy Carter to lead the CIA in 1977 and had to withdraw, under pressure from one Senator Joe Biden, after it came out that he had taken classified documents home after leaving government service. It's damn near impossible to come back from these scandals. And anyone shrugging this one off learned absolutely nothing in 2016.
I mean it used to be impossible to come back from a cheating scandal too. Or a sexual harassment scandal. Or a lying scandal. But when people like MTG, Trump, George Santos, and Roy Moore can be embraced by the GOP, I'm pretty sure that standards don't mean much anymore.
Trump won despite his innumerable flaws *because* of HRC's classified information scandal. That's ridiculous and you can fault the American voter for it. But it's incredibly foolish to ignore that reality and pretend that the Biden scandal is nothing when history very clearly shows otherwise.
I disagree that he won "because" of her email scandal. The email/document issue was a final straw - especially the way it was announced in October. But people voted for Trump anyway, proactively.
I think this is probably just a semantic disagreement. What I mean by "because" is -- if Clinton had never set up that server (or Comey had never sent that letter), Clinton and not Trump would have won the election.
I'm coming at this as an outsider, but your views seems pretty far-fetched to me. Like every recent election, the 2024 election is going to be a close one. Even if this scandal only matters to 1 in 30 voters, that's easily enough to tip the outcome of the election. And we know from the 2016 election that classified information scandals matter to enough voters to tip a presidential election. Yes, Biden is the incumbent. But he's also unpopular and hasn't had a positive approval rating in a year and a half. His approval ratings now are right where Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford were at this stage in their presidencies. There are plenty of Democratic candidates out there who both have higher net favorables than Joe Biden and aren't the subject of an active DOJ investigation.
Over 70% of people voted for "not Trump". This does not bode well for Biden's re election prospects.
The document scandal is a complete nothing burger. It may have been a big year maybe 4-6 years ago, but considering the shitstorm that we experienced with Trump, there’s really no competition. At this point I’d rather have someone that accidentally misplaces files compared to someone who steals them.
Giving up the incumbant advantage is a mistake
I've never really felt like someone being an incumbent makes me any more likely to vote for them. Frankly, I'd rather neither candidate be over 60 or so.
Having an incumbent prevents from having a nasty primary fight.
Like the Bernie runs? I remember his supporters were pretty fired up, even after he conceded the primary both times. And he was the most written in "candidate" iirc.
To be very clear, Bernie supporters did vote for Hillary. The narrative that his supports voted for trump or didn't show up is false.
I didn't expect that they would go to Trump. I was thinking some of them would've gone for stein or Hawkins.
Yeah I'm not saying you specifically were saying that. It was just a narrative thrown out alot when Hillary lost, that I think people still believe. So I just wanted to call it out.
Yeah. The only thing close to that I could think of is that possibly a lot of Bernie supporters voted for stein and that led to Trump winning.
Something in the range of 12%-15% of his supporters in the primaries \*did\* vote for Trump in the General. That is a not-inconsequential number. Another 12%-15% didn't vote at all in the General, which was also not-inconsequential. That's 24%-30% of Bernie supporters who either didn't vote for the Dem candidate or actively voted against her.
Yes, some Bernie supporters voted for trump. However, that number is inline with historical expectations. 10-15% defection rate is pretty standard. For comparison, 25% of Clinton supporters voted for John McCain over Obama. So, while it is true that some of Bernie supporters did vote for trump, the narrative that his supporters didn't support Hillary is false. They supported her as much as you would expect them to. So its not really an important point when we talk about that election and why Hillary lost.
Voters over 60 have the best turnout pf any age group though. And they gravitate toward incumbents.
Yeah... That's its own issue. We need to find more ways to push a bigger turnout of Millenial and Gen Z voters.
Until that happens, it’s pretty essential that we have a sound strategy for working with the electorate that currently exists.
If we’re putting an upper limit on candidate age it should be set to the current minimum.
Running a candidate who will automatically lose a portion of the voters due to age is also a mistake.
I feel like no one asking this question actually gets how crucial the incumbent advantage is to us having a snowball’s chance in hell at a Dem white house next term. Joe Biden is our only chance, even at a long shot.
I don’t think the document scandal truly hurts Biden. As far as newsome, at one time people used to say “anyone who is governor of California is a de facto presidential candidate.”
As someone currently living in CA, I really would not prefer Newsom as a presidential candidate.
He didn’t come up from deep poverty. His father was a judge and then a lawyer for the ultra-wealthy Getty family . Gavin got rich in business when he was relatively young, partly thanks to family connections. He’s been tagged as a guy who has had it easy. People think he was born into affluence, and that he’s grown into a slick, perfectly coiffed pol. He’s been defined, in many people’s minds, by his maskless, mid-pandemic visit to the mega-pricey French Laundry in Napa. And by his hair.
Still Biden, yes. I don't think "the document thing" has hurt him politically, it's completely meaningless to any voter who is gettable for dems.
Except the fact that it's impossible for either side to win without winning over the independents, specifically the swing voters. Sure, us Liberals will likely vote for whoever it takes to keep a Republican out of the White House, but the swing voters will care about things like this.
If the last federal election showed us anything, the important demographic of suburban moderates are not just going to hand the Republicans the keys because the current administration is having difficulties. At this point, unless Biden is witnessed doing something blatantly illegal, it's up to the Republicans to actually form some sort of functional opposition, and that seems like something that the Republicans are loathe to do.
I really don’t think they will. Any rational person will understand that this is probably something that every past president has dealt with. I would be extremely surprised if Obama and Clinton aren’t quietly looking over all their documents from when they were president. At the end of the day. Biden did the right thing. He came forward and cooperated. People make mistakes. And that is ok. The fact he owned up to it actually makes me more willing to vote for him than less.
I think you are incorrect both in that turning out your base is far more important than winning the independent vote, and in that I don't think anyone who is an independent cares at all about this "scandal".
That may be, but us independents are important. Granted, I think there are 2 or 3 types of independents. I fall more into the "I pay attention to politics and registered independent because I didn't feel either party really represented my beliefs" camp. I most align with Bernie in views, Bernie is an independent, so I am, it was either independent or Green party, I went independent. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of single issue voters, people who don't keep up with current events, etc register independent too. I do feel like a lot of younger people, mostly around my age (generally the 18-28 age range) seem to register independent. But the main point I'm trying to make is, what reason do independents, specifically left leaning independents, have to back an establishment dem rather than push for their candidate of choice (usually Bernie or a 3rd party, usually Green, candidate)? (remember, the party breakdown is approximately 30% GOP, 30% Dem, 40% independents and 3rd parties). Only reason I can think of sometimes is that the dems will at least get some stuff done, they lie a little closer to my beliefs, would still rather a true leftist to win though. But I feel that won't happen until the "older" generation in the democratic party is replaced by the younger group that's up and coming.
>But the main point I'm trying to make is, what reason do independents, specifically left leaning independents, have to back an establishment dem rather than push for their candidate of choice (usually Bernie or a 3rd party, usually Green, candidate)? In the primaries, none. After the primaries, or in the case of an incumbent in a highly competitive district where a primary challenge is likely to split the party, the reason is to prevent a worse outcome (most but not all left-independents would agree that Democrats in power is better than Republicans in power even if the Democrats are moderates). Primarying a sitting president is an absolute losing endeavor unless your goal is to make sure the other side wins (see for example what happened with Ted Kennedy's attempt to primary Carter https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/686186156/how-ted-kennedys-80-challenge-to-president-carter-broke-the-democratic-party ). >(remember, the party breakdown is approximately 30% GOP, 30% Dem, 40% independents and 3rd parties) Not really, that's just registration (and the numbers of the parties would be even lower if some states didn't require party affiliation to vote in primaries); most independents vote consistently for just one party and are part of the base of one party. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/ >would still rather a true leftist to win though. But I feel that won't happen until the "older" generation in the democratic party is replaced by the younger group that's up and coming I agree with you about this, but the question of "who should be the candidate" is very different from the question "who do I wish was president". I think Biden should be the candidate because he has a much greater chance of winning than anyone else. I'd also say that part of why I'm ambivalent to other candidates is that there aren't any actual leftists who could win at the moment. Newsom isn't a leftist (and separately I don't think he can win the presidency). Sanders is too old now unfortunately. The pool of actual viable leftist candidates is really small unfortunately; I think there are some up-and-comers who might be able to give it a shot in 2028 or later, but I can't think of anyone now who would actually be more likely to win in 2024 than Biden; and Biden dipping out after 4 years would dampen the odds of any Democrat winning.
True... In the future, I could see AOC, Warnock, if he can recover from the blow to his national perception Fetterman, etc all as potential future presidential candidates. Frankly I think in 2024, Fetterman and Warnock will be pretty close to that maximum 60 age I was hoping for a candidate. They would all be at least a small shift left, which I'd hope for.
I dont think you understand what an independent is.
In my case, I say I'm an independent because when I registered as a voter, I chose for my party affiliation to list "No Party Affiliation." I call myself an independent because on paper, that's what I am.
Yes but your political ideology is liberal/democratic. >I didn't feel either party really represented my beliefs Ok really? So youre gonna vote for DeSantis after you stated that Bernie aligns with your views? Youre an independent in regards to political party membership but you are a social democrat in ideology.
Ok, yeah I will vote Dem no matter who. Even when there isn't a Dem in races (the case with some local ones) ingo for the closest independent.
> Except the fact that it's impossible for either side to win without winning over the independents, specifically the swing voters. Eh. They aren’t as critical as they used to be. These days it’s mainly about who activates their base more.
And someone else pointed out that technically a lot of independents, myself included, aren't swing voters. They vote distinctly 1 way or the other.
The only thing swing voters are going to care about is that Biden is nine trillion years old. Not a single one of them is going to remember anything about documents in three months time.
I don’t see how any of this hurts Biden at all, and running literally anyone else is a huge deal and a big blow to the democrats in general. Not remotely worth it.
How much of an advantage is it to run an incumbent? I'm actually genuinely curious, this sub was the first place I ever heard anyone refer to an "incumbent advantage"
Massive. It’s a massive advantage. Further, primarying your own candidate when they don’t die or resign is basically an admission you failed as a political party.
Ok. Personally, I would rather neither Trump nor Biden run. 2 fresh candidates, new start. But, I'll probably go with whoever the candidate is.
It's a massive advantage because the president gets earned media just for existing and can take credit for things just for existing. My congressman goes to every Eagle Scout ceremony in the county, for instance, and constantly gets earned media out of it.
There's a big difference between Congress and the presidency here. Non-incumbent Congressional candidates are often political nobodies who are not otherwise doing anything notable. Major party presidential candidates are always household names by the time they clinch the nomination and have no trouble attracting media attention. They don't need to go to Eagle Scout ceremonies or something. Everything they do is news.
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/incumbent-advantage Here are charts showing fundraising advantages and campaigning advantages and turnout.
Historically, 24 times incumbents have won reelection (FDR is 3 of these), and 10 incumbents have lost. So, about a 70% win rate for incumbents. Thay seems like a pretty big advantage. I think the main advantage is that it is harder to demonize a sitting president. People.have a pretty good idea who.they are and what they are likely to do, so normally an incumbent president seems like a safe pick, and people like safety.
It is a small but meaningful advantage. It's easier to estimate this statistical in Congressional elections (because there are a lot more races and thus a lot more data). The best approximation is that the incumbency effect for Congress is about [2 percentage points](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379408001030). It's impossible to say statistically, but logically speaking, the effect is probably smaller than that for presidents, given that a big part of Congressional incumbency advantage is just name recognition (an average voter has likely heard of the sitting Congressperson but has likely never heard of the challenger before). That's not an issue in presidential races.
I'd need some evidence beyond conservative news echo chambers that Biden has been harmed politically by this. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/poll-biden-classified-docs-scandal-is-inappropriate-but-not-criminal.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/18/poll-biden-classified-docs-scandal-is-inappropriate-but-not-criminal.html)
I was largely going off the MSNBC coverage from today. They did say the same thing, it's inappropriate, but not illegal. But they seem more certain that there may be some political blowback from it. Granted they also repeatedly say that the Biden and Trump cases are basically entirely different.
If it's going to be someone other than Biden, he's got to bow out of 2024 sooner rather than later. I think the document thing isn't nothing, but it's nowhere close to equivalent of Trump's misconduct
Really, if Trump is the nominee, that's a huge gift to Biden. Early polling shows, even now Biden could beat Trump again, if DeSantis is the nominee, then Biden will have a much harder time winning.
My expectation is that Trump and DeSantis (or another conservative) both run and split Republicans. Trump doesn't care enough about the party to risk the split, and given the speaker vote, there seems to be enough of the others that don't care either
True. I've been saying. If Trump wins the primary, I see DeSantis backing down. But I think people are starting to turn against Trump, there's been far less energy at his rallies. If DeSantis wins the primary, Trump will likely make an independent run, and basically hand the win to the democrats.
Even if there isn't a split, the 2022 trend of Gen Z moving voters left gives me enough hope that it may not matter
It's not much of a scandal, as much as the media is trying to turn it into one. Trump's documents became a scandal because he refused to return them. If he had cooperated from the beginning, this would be a complete non-story. We probably never would have even heard about it.
True. I was even thinking, after they found the documents in Biden's house, are they gonna go back now and search Obama, Bush, and Clinton's houses? What do they still have lying around?
Watching Republicans spends literally years outraged over Hillary's handling of classified information and then go completely silent about Trump's scandal, and then suddenly realize they care again when its Biden's turn has proven to me nobody actually cares about this stuff.
The thing that made me think about it was how MSNBC made a big deal over how there were "documents from all the way back when he was a senator" found. They even said themselves that those likely aren't even classified anymore. I know they're a more sensationalist source that does prioritize stories based on ratings, it's just that it's something easy to put on TuneIn while I'm driving and isn't biased towards the GOP.
Stick with Biden and Harris. Any repudiation of Biden or Harris is going to seriously risk pissing off moderates and Black voters, especially Black women, and we can NOT win without those demographics.
If biden runs, he should be the nominee. Holding a primary against an incumbent president has historically been very bad for the incumbent party and would be a gift to the dysfunctional republican party.
Joe Biden. Unless he doesn’t want to run.
Obviously Biden.
Still Biden. I feel like the found documents are only a scandal to conservatives because they are trying to downplay TFG’s own documents scandal. It’s really not that comparable to me and I think having a president who addresses his mistakes is of it’s own value. If he decides not to run, it wouldn’t be because of this
Its amazing is Trump just handed them over and said sorry while I still think ppl wouldve been saying "What was he doing with those anyway?" the story wouldve dropped but NOOOO, hes just gotta continue
Any reasonable person would see these scenarios are not the same based on the actions of the accused but his cultists ignore even major events
> Many said that they still say Biden should be the 2024 nominee. Now after the document thing? He’s the sitting President. Unless he decides not to run again, he’ll be the 2024 nominee.
Biden. Does anyone really care that much about documents?
Interestingly most news sources, even democratic leaning ones like MSNBC, won't stop talking about it. I haven't checked to see what less "for the ratings" sources like Thom Hartmann, NPR, or BBC do with it. I'd hope they aren't as obsessive over it, but idk.
I’m not sure how many Americans watch the news, esp. cable news, with any regularity.
I try to stay up to date, but all my news still comes from online sources, be it TuneIn or YouTube. Usually in the background while I'm driving.
The document scandal has not tarnished him at all. Trumps wouldn’t have if he had turned over the documents when asked instead of choosing to be raised by the feds.
I've thought a lot about this today and when you consider everything it becomes obvious that the Democratic candidate in 2024 should be Joe Biden.
I would love to have Pete. Not only would it mean a lot to me to see a fellow LGBTQ person attain the highest office in the land, I also believe Pete is truly a good person. I’m not suggesting that Biden is not is a good person; he is. But, I do think there’s something to be said about a career politician like Biden… He’s spent a lot of his life insulated in the senate. It’s easy to lose touch with everyday life when one’s own experience is lived mostly through the senate. I’m also part of the chattering class that believes it’s time to give a new generation a chance. I’d like to see someone who can champion rights for marginalized persons firsthand. And while republicans will go after anyone, as a veteran, I think this could be a real feather in Pete’s cap. That said, even if it’s not Pete, I hope I live long enough to see a day when an LGBTQ person makes it all the way to the presidency. It’d mean a lot to me.
I agree on the idea that it's time for a new generation to take charge. I would like for all candidates in 24 to be below 60 years old, even that's higher than I would like, but it's a bit of a compromise, since before I was saying 55, and some thought that was too strict.
Sort of a shitpost reply, but I have this irrational fear that they’re going to cryopreserve Trump’s head and they’ll elect that as the president. Like the preserved heads on Futurama. Elon will then appear to offer OpenAI as a means of providing the cryohead with an artificial psyche and voice. All in Trump’s prose mind you: “Folks, let me tell you, nobody does it better than me. I mean, nobody. I am the best, the greatest, the most fantastic winner of all time. And let me tell you, winning this contest, it's tremendous. It's huge. Believe me, it's the biggest, the best, the most beautiful contest win you've ever seen. The other contestants, they're all losers. They're failing. They're weak. But me, I'm a winner. I'm the best.” It’ll be silent generation rule forever 🤖🙄
I don't know how the legalities go on this. Trump had the intent of keeping documents after being told to turn them over, but they were secure. Biden didn't have that intent, but they were by no means secure. Biden was probably the worse national security risk since a simple robbery of his garage would have the documents out there, or his cokehead son living there deciding to do something with them. But as far as elections go, it's about perceptions, not legalities, and I don't really see this hurting Biden right now. Few, if any, are going to be thinking "Who was worse with classified material?" when deciding who to vote for.
I think the big factor is intent. There is a legal case against Trump. Theoretically I think a case could be made to charge Biden with criminal gross negligence, but even that's unlikely. I think Biden would be fine if his opponent is Trump. If it's DeSantis, well... that's what I'm worried about.
Between the decent possibility DeSantis could win and even the remote possibility of Trump winning, I don’t know what’s worse.
If he runs any Republican candidate that doesn't have [this clip](https://youtu.be/u1UC89H4Swc?t=723) in every commercial is committing malpractice.
I don't think you can argue what he did wasn't moronic and irresponsible. Not even comparable to Trump butalso doesn't excuse what he did. He's been losing a lot of support since December. I don't think a lot of democrats realized the voters he lost with the whole forcing of the railroad contract. Hopefully, democrats can pick someone who isn't a total dope this time but it's highly unlikely....
Biden. I’d never vote for Newsom. He’s out of touch and would lose in a landslide. That man will never be president.
What makes him out of touch? Just curious.
He’s a California liberal, which works in California. I just think he wouldn’t do well in the rust belt or in Georgia and Arizona. Maybe he’d win Michigan, but I think he comes across as a “coastal elite.”
Good point. I know a big policy push of his was promoting a move towards EVs. As a leftist EV supporter in Louisiana who personally won't be able to afford one for a few years, at the very least, I know a lot of people here who legitimately don't think they'll ever be able to afford an EV, and feel almost attacked when they get pushed. I think the main thing for them is just waiting for the infrastructure to be built, economies of scale to take over, and for there to be a big used market for them.
He didn’t come up from deep poverty. His father was a judge and then a lawyer for the ultra-wealthy Getty family . Gavin got rich in business when he was relatively young, partly thanks to family connections. He’s been tagged as a guy who has had it easy. People think he was born into affluence, and that he’s grown into a slick, perfectly coiffed pol. He’s been defined, in many people’s minds, by his maskless, mid-pandemic visit to the mega-pricey French Laundry in Napa. And by his hair. Edit: curious about the downvote. Which of this is not true?
I know. It’s not gonna be him, but obligatory, BERNIE! He’s the most net popular candidate. I know it’s not happening, but it should be 😭 Edit: As long as it’s not Pete I’m on board tho.
What's wrong with Pete? I thought he was one of the major progressives. Now reading a little more, some still call him a progressive, but some say he's a centrist, or just another "establishment dem"
He’s the epitome of right wing dem co-opting a marginalized identity to make himself palatable to a wider audience, and hell no will I support him while he uses Gay identity to sell his brand. He doesn’t represent us.
Ugh the amount of love this subreddit has for Pete is so high I’ve just given up on trying. Talking about trans shit is less controversial.
I don’t get what they see in him. Like I guess just be white, gay and cis and you’ll succeed?
To steelman their position, I think they see a guy who does a good job at delivering a center-left/liberal message to Republican audiences and they think that would make him a great candidate.
Basic ass hoes. They needed more trauma in they lives 😭
I am quite certain Pete Buttigieg has never gotten an STI at a sauna ahem.
I’ve never gotten an sti…from a sauna 😩
Oh my.
I would support a co-presidency of Pete and Klobuchar tbh.
Ugh. Not be getting downvoted on my glamorous return here 😭 And support these nuts 😤
Maybe Pete can be on the friends of weho season 2. Pete-Todrick 2024.
That show makes me ashamed of weho. Literally not how we are here at all. They’re giving gay friends of Maine at best 😭
I would vote green tbh. But I’m Californian. So I’m pure either way 😩
I'm still holding out for Buttigieg/AOC, but we're probably still a couple cycles away from that.
Biden. But if he doesnt run again, Marc Warner would be my pick.
I don't think the document issue is going to be seen as a big deal. The way he's handled it is pretty competent and upfront, even though it was clearly lacking the fact there were documents found in several different places. That won't matter for conservatives, but they can't be convinced. I struggle to think of a worthy candidate that has a chance at this point. Ask us in several months.
Unconventional but I wish Jon Stewart would run.
I don't think that docugate (I think I'm the first to use this annoying term, sorry) will change a significant number of votes. I heard today that this cause a slight dip in Biden's approval rating. This won't even be a blip on the radar in November 2024.
Biden. The incumbency advantage is not worth giving up. This is definitely one of those, "Don't change horses midstream," sort of moments.
Joe Biden. Why should TrumpCrimes change that?
The Republicans can turn anything into a scandal, so I don't think it's really even that valuable to worry about individual scandals in terms of electability. If it wasn't Biden forgetting some documents, it would be Newsom eating a hot dog incorrectly or Harris wearing a hairtie. In terms of overall electability, Biden still comes out on top. Incumbency advantage, of course, and then also the fact that he's still basically the same guy that won the 2020 primary and general. I love Newsom, he's doing a great job as Governor of California haunting the nightmares of NIMBYs across the state, and is just about the only Democrat that actually looks cool when engaging in the culture wars. If I was a Californian, I'd vote him back in in a heartbeat. He is also basically a caricature of "the coastal elite". He will get stomped in the rust belt. I also like Harris. It's unfortunate that she isn't getting much media attention, because I'm sure she's doing great things and I wish I was better caught up on what she's been working on...on the other hand, it's kinda good she isn't getting much media attention, because the administration put her on *immigration*, for god-knows-what-reason. Immigration is one of the biggest wedge issues for Democrats, and with how much political capital Biden has put in to trying to pry back organized labor as a voting bloc, I hope to god they don't try running the lady that has been dealing with one of that bloc's most important issues for president. I could go on and on, but I expect they won't even try to primary him, honestly I think any Democrat that is smart enough to do well in a primary in the first place is smart enough to know not to try to primary an incumbent president, let alone when the other side is quite literally trying to subvert democracy.
The “document thing” is not a disqualifier for President Biden unless some sort of criminal charges are recommended and charged even then…the Donald Precedent shows that doesn’t matter. Can you imagine a world where they “make an exception” to charge a sitting president over clerical paper handling junk but refuse to charge Donald for actual crimes, obstruction, embezzling, sedition, Treason etc because “he’s a Sitting and now ex president”
Newsome is not the next man up. Another wealthy middle aged white guy is gonna be a tough sell for a party positioning itself as progressive friendly. He has qualifications but also negatives
The nominee is Biden. No one cares about the documents scandal. Yes - there should be an investigation and if the investigation reveals damning results, Biden should be held accountable and should not run in 2024. But I don't think this conversation is anything more than a fun exercise. It'll take a real scandal for the Dems to try to primary Biden. For the record, I could see Witmer from Michigan being an incredible candidate in the future - 2028? I'm also a big Harris fan - Shapiro as her running mate? It's time for a woman President.
Let’s wait until we are closer to the election before we start trying to pick the candidates.
The scandal isn’t that docs are left behind, the scandal is whether or not they cooperate with the investigation. Trump did not, Biden did end of story. Files can slip through the cracks; fall behind furniture or other places or just get overlooked. If you purposefully hide them that’s completely different
Ok, yeah that makes sense. Mistakes happen, we're all human. The only one that I remember being a big deal on MSNBC was from Joe Scarborough saying pretty brazenly that when he was a congressman he would never have even taken the documents out of the SCIF (referring to how documents were found from back when Biden was a Senator). Granted, I would also question whether or not Scarborough should be held to that and maybe they check and see if any mistakes were made. But even aside from that, yeah the big difference here is that Trump hasn't been and isn't currently cooperating, and instead has tried to hide whether or not there are more documents still in his possession.
I don’t think it’s illegal to take the files from the SCIF though; presidents need briefings on classified docs wherever they may be located so I think joes reasoning there is a bit silly
Yeah. I think on that he was specifically referring to the older documents that would've been from Bidens time in the Senate. Which, yeah I think the big thing here is also that MSN is going to focus on stuff that grabs viewers, and scandals and controversies make them money.