Biden quietly but clearly prepares a potential reelection bid

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

President Biden and first lady Jill Biden have been meeting since September with senior advisers at the White House residence to prepare a potential 2024 reelection campaign, according to multiple people familiar with the planning.

The meetings of what advisers describe as a “very small group” come as the Democratic National Committee has been making plans to respond on President Biden’s behalf to former president Donald Trump or other potential presidential contenders who could announce campaigns in the coming months. The national party is also drafting plans to reengage with grass-roots supporters from the 2020 campaign who are not involved in the Democratic midterm effort, the people said.

Biden, who would turn 86 before the end of a second term, has not yet made a final decision on another presidential campaign, his advisers say, but he has indicated publicly and privately that he intends to run barring an unforeseen event. He has also suggested that he will be more eager to run if Trump gets into the race — as the former president has repeatedly suggested he will.

Top White House advisers Anita Dunn, Mike Donilon and Jen O’Malley Dillon, who played senior roles in Biden’s 2020 campaign, have been involved in the planning discussions with Biden, as has Chief of Staff Ron Klain. While Biden’s advisers have been focused on the midterms, Dunn and O’Malley Dillon have spoken with veterans of the past two Democratic presidential reelection campaigns, including Barack Obama’s campaign managers, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, and two veterans of Bill Clinton’s administration, Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, who now work in the White House.

[Polybius]

1. If he runs, I think he makes it official by February

April at the latest.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

2. Biden will definitely run in 2024.

And thank goodness for his commitment to our democracy.

4 more years!

[Demsrule86]

7. Exactly right, we need him to chart us through these 'interesting' times.

[GenXer47]

3. I hate to bring this up

but if the Repukes take the House, then the Speaker will be 3rd in line to be president, and that leaves only Kamala as a buffer if Joe dies or becomes incapacitated.
I feel like we're playing with fire here.

[Demsrule86]

5. What are you trying to say And I doubt very much we lose the House anyway.

[Polybius]

28. How do you still doubt the House is lost?

Sometimes I wish I had your optimism.

[Demsrule86]

35. It is not just optimism...and you paint a very dark picture...but you are not stupid so you have to

know that much of the polls are BS GOP polls and surveys that ask the questions about Biden and other things...yada yada. The idea that Roe is not an issue k is BS first of all and how accurate were the Kansas polls or New York 19? Also, there is a generic poll that shows the Democrats ahead by 5 for Congress...if that is true...we hold the House and the Senate...you report bad news and ignore all good news... I look at everything. We have a chance to take both chambers and then fight about stolen elections for a couple of months. I think the GOP know they may not win and are simply doing the polls to lower democratic enthusiasm and to build a case for 'the election was stolen'. You already see it starting in Philly.

[Polybius]

46. With regards to Kansas, I just believe that was too soon after Dobbs

It was fresh in voters minds then. I don't think it will have a big effect next week.

Yes, there is a poll that shows us ahead by 5. 4 others also came out today though that show us behind. We should average them out, and not focus on the one that makes us feel good.

But who knows, maybe you'll be right. If you are, I hope that you accept my humble apologies.

[honest.abe]

23. If Joe dies in office, Kamala become President and she immediately appoints a VP.

The Speaker is still two people away if the Thugs take the House.

[Polybius]

29. No she doesn't immediately appoint a VP

They must be confirmed by the House and Senate. Good luck with that if they win.

[honest.abe]

34. I did not know that.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Demsrule86]

36. It doesn't matter. Biden has a much better chance of winning the presidency as an incumbent.

[Polybius]

44. Yes, I was only commenting on the process

I am focused on 2022 for the next 6 days.

[Baggies]

4. I can't imagine anything moving forward until after the midterms.

Depending on how that goes, we could see all sorts of Democratic candidates throwing their hat into the ring.

[Demsrule86]

6. They better not. First of all, they will lose. Secondly, there will be no second chances for them as

as they will be branded disloyal...and many including me will never vote for them in any primary. Every time a sitting president is primaried, we lose and Biden has done a great job. There is value in incumbency...only four times in more than 100 years has an incumbent president lost.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. Agreed. Anyone who would run against Biden--a sitting president--would toast their own

political careers.

Joe Biden has been an exemplary president. A person made for these times and the perfect candidate to defeat TFG.

[Baggies]

9. Unlikely

Ted Kennedy wasn’t branded disloyal for challenging Carter. Besides, for the sake of the Party he may not have a choice. Lose a whole bunch of seats on the Fed and State level and suddenly individuals don’t want you around anymore.

[Mad_Machine76]

10. It's not clear that's going to happen

plus Obama won re-election in 2012 despite the disastrous 2010 midterms.

[Baggies]

11. Nothing is clear until it happens.

That’s all I’m saying. He could be challenged. My guess is if the mid-terms go badly, other candidates will see blood in the water. This notion that politicians are going to not do something based upon some type of unwritten Party loyalty rule is too ridiculous to address. That’s just not how the real world works.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. He won't receive a serious challenge, and if he does, as others have pointed out...

...they will receive such fierce backlash -- not due to some "unwritten Party loyalty rule," but because Democratic voters will not look fondly on it. And there is not one single candidate that could beat Biden when the nomination was a toss-up, much less now, when he's the incumbent Democratic president. Democrats are a fickle bunch and they may prefer a different candidate, but you know what they don't agree on? Who that different candidate would be, which is there's absolutely zero reason to think any candidate would dare challenge him. They would only generate ill will among Democratic voters and they would ultimately lose.

Sorry for you getting your hopes up, but Biden is here to stay.

[Baggies]

14. That's not how things work.

It will never be said he’s being discouraged from running, it just that he’ll decide not to run. That will be the official release.

The members here will be none the wiser which, all things considered from what I’ve observed, will be for the best.

That is if he chooses to run again, which doesn’t matter to me either way. Your last sentence is a non-sequitor.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. What was it Bruno Mars said?

"Don't believe me, just watch!"

The only way Biden will not be the 2024 Democratic nominee is if he himself chooses not to run, and there has been absolutely no indication he will do that, regardless of how much certain segments of the left wish that he wouldn't.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. If you completely take party and person out of it, and

Operate solely on respect and loyalty, it won't happen. There won't be a challenge.

But in a realistic world, it's quite curious that someone could lose the House ( fingers crossed that doesn't happen), have majority in your party not want you to run, and approvals under water and still think "hell ya I should run."

If respect and loyalty can outweigh this, great!

[W_HAMILTON]

24. It's not even respect and loyalty.

It's the fact that as much as Democrats may not like Biden, they are even less likely to like someone that would replace him; case in point, nearly every Democrat tried in 2020 and they all still lost, pretty miserably in most cases.

Plus, from a purely strategical and political perspective, it would be downright idiotic to replace a sitting president in the primary. You would lose the advantage of being an incumbent president and yet your general election opponent would still tie you to every single thing that was done under their administration. They'd be going into the general with one arm tied behind their back. And that's not even bringing up the inevitable bad taste left in at least some Democrats' minds by daring to challenge a sitting president in the primary.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Wow that's pretty heavy. There is no one we like more than

Someone we might not like.

Good point hadn't thought about incumbency. How many points is that worth? Thank God it didn't work for Prez Dipshit

[betsuni]

30. +1

[bullwinkle428]

25. Reagan got his ass handed to him in the '82 midterms, then won re-election

in a historic landslide. Unfortunately, of course.

[Hekate]

13. Yes he was. Especially since he cost Carter his re-election.

[Baggies]

15. So Ted Kennedy was branded as disloyal?

Nope, didn’t happen. TK was always viewed as a loyal Party member. He didn’t lose the election for Carter.

[Hekate]

16. He was blamed for it for years and years afterward. Decades, even.

[Raine]

33. That's the way I remember it too. It was brought up

often, he was blamed for weakening Carter.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

17. You are correct.

I think someone is misremembering.

[Hekate]

18. They certainly appear to be misremembering

By the time he died, Ted Kennedy was eulogized as the Lion of the Senate, and well-deserved that praise.

However, his 2 major missteps in life were Chappaquiddick and challenging a sitting Democratic president.

If there was one thing in Reagan’s political life he was correct about it was his Eleventh Commandment — “Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican.” We Democrats would be well served to remember that on our own behalf, and stop boasting about “not being members of any organized political party.”

[Just A Box Of Rain]

20. I'm among those who considered Ted Kennedy the "Lion of the Senate,"

and he was beloved by me.

Despite that, I concur with every point you've made here.

Running against Carter was a mistake and it ended effectively Ted Kennedy's presidential prospects.

[Hekate]

27. I really loved the guy too...

But when Bobby was assassinated, I made up my mind I wasn’t going to support another Kennedy for a presidential run. I just believed, on the evidence, that he would always have a big, flashing target on his back.

It made me so sad to have to think like that. But Teddy got to do something none of his brothers did: grow to be an old man, and help watch all those kids grow up. And what a career in the Senate he had.

[Demsrule86]

37. Yes he was. He was blamed for the loss...sure he was a senator...but he could never run for

President again...I rest my case. And Kennedy deserved it. He should never have run against a sitting president...it is political suicide so whoever you favor that likely has no chance to win a general is going to have to wait until 28.

[former9thward]

31. Post WW II incumbent presidents have not had a great record.

IN fact they have losing record

Truman 1952 did not run because he knew he would lose
Ike re-elected
Johnson withdrew because he knew he would be defeated
Ford defeated
Carter defeated
Reagan re-elected
Bush I defeated
Clinton re-elected
Bush II re-elected
Obama re-elected
Trump defeated

So that means 6 incumbents were defeated or did not run because they would have been defeated
Five incumbents were re-elected.

[iemanja]

32. And the ones who were re-elected had good favorability ratings

[Demsrule86]

38. Truman did run and win an election as an incumbent.

[former9thward]

43. So did Johnson.

But both opted out of running for a second full term because of their unpopularity.

[Demsrule86]

39. Ford was never elected...and that is all BS...

Obviously, an incumbent president has an advantage and will win a primary IMHO because just as in 20, we have no one who can win the rustbelt except Biden. And there is no path to the presidency except the rust belt. The problem is a president is weakened if someone runs against them...now let's look at your list. Truman was president for 7 years and did run as an incumbent and won. Carter had a challenger (Kennedy) and lost, Bush I had a challenger in the primary and lost. Trump had a major catastrophe ...the virus and lost making to Roosevelt and Hoover.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Of course they will. Might be different story if above

water and if vast majority of party agreed with nomination. But we aren't there. Maybe we will be down the road who knows.

[Demsrule86]

40. If Biden runs and is primaryed, we will likely loose the election and I personally will never

forgive anyone who runs and never vote for them in a primary-I am not alone either. They will be seen as a spoiler and they will never be president.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Agree. If things get that bad, we likely would lose.

[Mr.Bill]

42. I feel that if the republicans take over the House

and maybe even the Senate, the clown show they will put on for the next two years will assure their demise in 2024.

[Sogo]

45. Good. I hope he runs again.

If he runs, he will be our nominee, and then we, the Democrats, have a surefire means of determining who runs on the Republican ticket.....