2024 Elections

[GoCubsGo]

Can't argue with any of that, Gavin.

Trump in March told supporters that if he won back the White House, he would come for their detractors.

“I am your retribution,” he said....

Don't know if he's just a good soldier, doesn't want the presidency or maybe he's got a skeleton (besides Kimberly), but I wish he'd would've run.

[Vrede too]

Don't know if he's just a good soldier, doesn't want the presidency or maybe he's got a skeleton (besides Kimberly), but I wish he'd would've run.

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

[GoCubsGo]

Don't know if he's just a good soldier, doesn't want the presidency or maybe he's got a skeleton (besides Kimberly), but I wish he'd would've run.

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

Yeah, you're right.

Just venting.

[Vrede too]

Ex-RNC Spokesperson Makes Grim Prediction About Mitt Romney's Senate Exit
Tim Miller suggested the senator's retirement spells bad news for the Republican Party and the country.

Former Republican National Committee spokesperson Tim Miller suggested the departure of Republicans like Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) from politics paves the way for more extremists to take up the mantle.

“The more these people leave, they’re going to be replaced by uglier and uglier folks,” Miller, a writer for The Bulwark, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday.

Romney was “serious about governing,” Miller said, noting that the senator worked with Democrats on a number of issues, such as infrastructure, gun reform and the Electoral Count Reform Act.

“This is, again, what should be the minimum of what we want from our legislators, but there are just so few of them left on the Republican side,” he said.

Romney announced Wednesday that he would not seek reelection in 2024, marking a likely end to his two-decade political career.

His departure means the loss of a unique voice from the Senate of a Republican willing to call out and break ranks with his own party, which is still firmly under the grasp of Donald Trump.

He was the only Republican senator to vote to remove Trump for abuse of power in the former president’s first impeachment trial. He also voted to convict following Trump’s second impeachment for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection....

[GoCubsGo]

Amazing how things have changed.

I disliked him passionately in 2012, now he's the voice of reason in a trumpaloon world.

[O Really]

Romney was always a pretty decent guy until he ran temporarily off the rails in 2012 trying to appeal to what became trumpers.

[billy.pilgrim]

Amazing how things have changed.

I disliked him passionately in 2012, now he's the voice of reason in a trumpaloon world.

Same here. I hated watching him get away with his income tax lies.

[Vrede too]

Amazing how things have changed.

I disliked him passionately in 2012, now he's the voice of reason in a trumpaloon world.

Same here. I hated watching him get away with his income tax lies.

Ah Mitten, we’ll always have the Cayman Islands.

[GoCubsGo]

Opps.

Guess this has been rumored for a couple of years....confirmed?

[neoplacebo]

The asshat on the right kind of looks like Mad Cow Cawthorn.

[Vrede too]

Don't know if he's just a good soldier, doesn't want the presidency or maybe he's got a skeleton (besides Kimberly), but I wish he'd (Gavin) would've run.

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

Yeah, you're right.

Just venting.

Long article covering our short discussion:

Incumbent Presidents Have Faced Vicious Primary Challenges. Why Isn't Joe Biden?
There’s one big factor that usually prompts a primary challenge to an incumbent. The Biden presidency doesn’t have it.

... Even further back, the last time an elected incumbent president made a serious bid for renomination and was denied was in 1856, when Democrats replaced President Franklin Pierce with former Secretary of State James Buchanan. And that was during the old days of cigar-chomping party bosses. This is how rare it is to succeed in challenging an incumbent.

That really is a long time ago. Buchanan won the WH, then we had a Civil War.

For the sake of making a comparison to Biden’s predicament, let’s focus on the three most recent examples of incumbents facing significant primary challenges.

They have a number of things in common. First, the challenges all represented real factional divides within their party. Second — and this may sound like it should be a given — they all ran with the intent of actually winning the nomination. (Maybe not McCarthy, but definitely RFK.) And, third, in each case the incumbent party lost the ensuing general election.

In Biden’s case, none of the primary candidates floated by pundits to challenge him represent any kind of factional divide within the party.

Do big names like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Sen. Raphael Warnock (Ga.) or Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) have any real policy objections to Biden’s governance? Do they represent any faction within the party that is particularly, or even somewhat, aggrieved by Biden’s actions? No.

Were a challenge to emerge based on an internal divide, you would expect it to come from the party’s left wing. But Biden has deftly cultivated relationships with the party’s left. He includes Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in policy-making decisions, and considered appointing him as labor secretary. Biden’s administration is filled with former staffers of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). And he listens to labor unions. The younger standard-bearers of the Democratic left are either too young to run, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), or are content to wait, like Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.)....

SmartJoeSmart

Joe's age is a real issue, one that matters to me as well as both the majority of Dems and the majority of the nation. However, a Dem challenger running essentially on Joe's platform is certain to lose the nomination and is very likely to lose the WH for the Dems as happened with McCarthy/RFK in 1968, Reagan in 1976, and Ted Kennedy in 1980.

AOC in 2028!

[billy.pilgrim]

68?

[Vrede too]

68?

Fta:

... In 1968, the Democratic Party was viciously divided over multiple issues ― from civil rights and segregation to crime and rioting in the cities ― but the biggest issue that cleaved the party was the Vietnam War. Sen. Eugene McCarthy (Minn.) launched a primary bid in 1967 against President Lyndon Johnson largely as an anti-war protest.

Following the disaster of the 1968 Tet Offensive, McCarthy surged into second place in the New Hampshire primary with 42% and held Johnson under 50%. Four days later, Johnson’s most feared opponent, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (N.Y.), entered the race. Johnson announced he would not seek reelection a few weeks later. Following Kennedy’s assassination, the party bosses selected Vice President Hubert Humphrey as their candidate, but the divisions over Vietnam crippled his candidacy, leading to a loss to former Vice President Richard Nixon....

I didn't mean to imply that McCarthy/RFK were the sole reason for Nixon's win, but they sure didn't retain the WH for the Dems, either.

[billy.pilgrim]

68?

Fta:

... In 1968, the Democratic Party was viciously divided over multiple issues ― from civil rights and segregation to crime and rioting in the cities ― but the biggest issue that cleaved the party was the Vietnam War. Sen. Eugene McCarthy (Minn.) launched a primary bid in 1967 against President Lyndon Johnson largely as an anti-war protest.

Following the disaster of the 1968 Tet Offensive, McCarthy surged into second place in the New Hampshire primary with 42% and held Johnson under 50%. Four days later, Johnson’s most feared opponent, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (N.Y.), entered the race. Johnson announced he would not seek reelection a few weeks later. Following Kennedy’s assassination, the party bosses selected Vice President Hubert Humphrey as their candidate, but the divisions over Vietnam crippled his candidacy, leading to a loss to former Vice President Richard Nixon....

I didn't mean to imply that McCarthy/RFK were the sole reason for Nixon's win, but they sure didn't retain the WH for the Dems, either.

RFK didn't retain the WH because he was dead.

[O Really]

As mentioned in the quote, above, Humphrey didn't win primarily because he didn't vigorously refute LBJ's Vietnam policies, thus keeping himself perceptually aligned with what most opposed. If he had said something like "it's time for a change in our approach to Vietnam and, rather than continuing the policies of the current administration - of which I am a part - as President I will immediately begin de-escalation of the war and bring an end to US involvement" he probably would have won, we wouldn't have had Nixon and the resultant messes. And even if Humphrey hadn't been able or willing to end the war, we wouldn't have been any worse off than were were with Nixon.

[Vrede too]

RFK didn't retain the WH because he was dead.

Getting assassinated was a consequence of running. Whether he would have won the general is speculation. What we know is that RFK challenged an incumbent and the Dems lost in Nov.

HHH may have won with a better campaign, but he doesn't count in the author's point because he didn't run until after LBJ withdrew.

[billy.pilgrim]

RFK didn't retain the WH because he was dead.

Getting assassinated was a consequence of running. Whether he would have won the general is speculation. What we know is that RFK challenged an incumbent and the Dems lost in Nov.

HHH may have won with a better campaign, but he doesn't count in the author's point because he didn't run until after LBJ withdrew.

Still a bad example. He was dead.

[Vrede too]

RFK didn't retain the WH because he was dead.

Getting assassinated was a consequence of running. Whether he would have won the general is speculation. What we know is that RFK challenged an incumbent and the Dems lost in Nov.

HHH may have won with a better campaign, but he doesn't count in the author's point because he didn't run until after LBJ withdrew.

Still a bad example. He was dead.

You're forgetting my original point:

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

Dead = Unsuccessful

[billy.pilgrim]

RFK didn't retain the WH because he was dead.

Getting assassinated was a consequence of running. Whether he would have won the general is speculation. What we know is that RFK challenged an incumbent and the Dems lost in Nov.

HHH may have won with a better campaign, but he doesn't count in the author's point because he didn't run until after LBJ withdrew.

Still a bad example. He was dead.

You're forgetting my original point:

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

Dead = Unsuccessful

Are you saying Lincoln had an unsuccessful 2nd term?

[Vrede too]

You're forgetting my original point:

It's a big deal to take on an incumbent in the primaries. I can't remember it ever being successful.

Dead = Unsuccessful

Are you saying Lincoln had an unsuccessful 2nd term?

600K+ dead Americans and a legacy of whiny White supremacy lasting 158+ years arguably = an unsuccessful 1st term.

The discussion is specific to primary challengers of incumbents - Unsuccessful since 1856, both parties. Wishful thinking about RFK doesn't change that.