-
It's the same as Clinton in 2016 I guess - she got to run because it was her turn, no one noticed that she'd been kicking around politics since the mid nineties and no-one liked her.
I thought when Biden was elected, he was meant to have been elected to beat Trump, that would be his legacy. In the meantime the party weas meant to expose and groom his sucessor.
It's mental, they did very little it seems. I heard all kinds of stories - more supreme court judges, more elecotral college votes in various places. I don't follow US politics that closely, but I'm not sure that anythings been reinforced to stand up to someone like Trump a second time.
christianSpaceman-
she got to run because it was her turn
Is that true? I thought the full weight of the Clintons' support for Obama was contingent on Obama backing Hillary over Joe.
In the meantime the party weas meant to expose and groom his sucessor.
This is also my memory.
-
Yes, I get the feeling the dems could have won it if they could have been bothered.
Biden did a job for them in 2020 and they could have immediately gone for succession planning. But they didn't, and the family - apparently - wanted to keep him in place. But the time the party realised how cooked he was, they couped him, but they'd left it too late, which meant they couldn't run a primary, so they were stuck with Harris, who they knew was a weak candidate.
But they could have run a primary earlier, if they believed in democracy. They didn't because they knew that Kennedy, or most likely anyone else, would absolutely shred Biden in the debates.
But that was a reason to get a new candidate, not prevent the contest. Their aversion to democracy backfired big time.
-
I don't follow US politics that closely, but I'm not sure that anythings been reinforced to stand up to someone like Trump a second time.
Most memorable thing for me is that he [Biden] took 2 year to nominate someone as chair for the deadlocked FCC. Not get someone elected (which would be hard because of the split house), but to even nominate someone.
At best it was inept, but it makes it easy to see why people think the Dems aren't interested in anything more than sustaining the status quo
hugo7
frank9755
branwen
I thought it was quite a good analysis. This bit particularly rings true, and ties in with what I've heard first hand from people who have been involved in politics in the US.