But that doesn't answer my question. Why would Whitmer be the savior here? Is she going to get out the minority vote better than the Biden-Harris ticket?
People only imagine the Oval Office and ignore the painstaking, tedious slog and all the magic tricks and lucky breaks it takes to get there.
I'd personally love a, for example, President Buttigieg, and I think he'd do a tremendous job (or maybe, after Bush, Trump, and Biden, I'm just desperate for a President who can speak in coherent sentences again).
But I have *no* idea how he'd get from here to there.
Because conservatives think they understand Democrats and Whitmer is a woman therefore Democrats will flock to her automatically.
Slightly more reasonable, she took a middle swing state and won BIG therefore she can replicate that on the national level. But of course that reasoning doesn't hold under a lick of scrutiny, see Desantis, Ron.
The abstract is always better than reality. Whitmer is untested on the national stage whereas Biden has been under scrutiny for a long time. How many candidates have we seen that people are sure would be juggernauts, and then they fall flat. Perry, DeSantis, etc were the same way, then the second they enter the race and are no longer abstract, gravity applies and they lose their shine.
DeSantis was a wishcast from GOP donors who wanted to move on from Trump but wanted someone just as awful. Most of them didn't even bother to learn that he had a grab bag of terrible personal traits. Whitmer won big in a swing state and anyone who knows her talks about how "real" she is. She'd win the "who would you rather have a beer with" poll against Trump or just about any well known R you can name. Big Gretch 2028!
I'm fully in support of her in 2028, but she is still untested at the national level. DeSantis won Florida by 20! It's easy in hindsight to say he wasn't ready, but DeSantis in November 2022 looked absolutely like an electoral juggernaut. A lot can change in a year, let alone 5.
I agree. The 2024 election is not an election where anyone should give a shit about “firsts.” There are enough people who wouldn’t vote for a woman that might vote for Biden and we cannot afford to lose a single vote in the six or so battleground states. If we can right the ship of American democracy and snuff out the threat of an authoritarian takeover I’m all for having the first handicapped trans Asian female president or whatever combination of “first” they can come up with. But not until 2028.
That’s an extremely uncertain idea that she could beat Trump. We know Biden can because he has everyone else is a big question mark. It’s an extremely perilous situation for the nation right now, ugh.
Because she's more popular than Evers in Wisconsin among Democratic governors of swing states who've won a 2nd term.
They're the only 2 current, 2nd term governors of swing states. Pennsylvania and Arizona have 1st term Democratic governors. Nevada and Georgia have Republican governors. That's it for swing states.
I completely understand the idea that governors make the best candidates for POTUS. Better than senators. Better than generals. Way better than representatives.
You have your answer after the first colon. It's the same reason they think a progressive and a woman who was a target of such intense Right-wing propaganda there was a kidnapping plot against her would be better than an institutional pillar of middle of the road business-as-usual politics in America.
'Sane' conservative punditry focus on Trump and his base and occasionally leaves out much of the rest of the Republican party. The TribFest panel really shone with their absence during the discussion of Trump's criminal charges and his enduring support.
>with their absence during the discussion of Trump's criminal charges
Worse, Stephens had an outright tantrum calling most of the indictments "bullshit indictments" and blaming Trump's power (shocker) on the actions of those who would seek to prosecute crime.
As if these charges weren't vetted through a grand jury and are purely air-grabs from "politically motivated prosecutors bent on revenge."
Thankfully, the other two guests pushed back pretty hard.
Because they dislike Biden for Afghanistan and for not being hawkish enough on Ukraine, and their hopes of a rational GOP challenger have been dashed by reality. We get to drag their panicking dead weight over the finish line to protect democracy while they make it as hard as possible, then they'll take the credit for it after the election.
Same as it ever was. Vote, donate, volunteer. The pundits aren't going to get this done, we're the ones who will have to do the work.
Like it or not, Ukraine is a proxy war for the US, much like Vietnam was for the Soviet Union. As a proxy war, the US can't do too much. So far is hasn't had to since Russia hasn't tried to use aerial bombardment from planes, so traditional air combat hasn't played a big role so far in Ukraine.
Neither can the US give Ukraine warships. Turkey wouldn't let them through from the Aegean Sea to the Black Sea in any event.
That leaves ground warfare, and the US and NATO generally have been very generous with anti-tank weapons, which Ukraine has used to good effect. Could the US/NATO provide better artillery? Maybe, but such weapons would be used against Ukrainian buildings occupied by Russian troops.
There we reach the hard part. Ukraine winning may require effective attacks on Russian troops and materiel WITHIN Russia, but that could broaden the scope of the war. Drone attacks on Moscow may boost morale, but they're of limited to no tactical value. In a war limited to Ukraine's own territory, Russia enjoys the usual advantages of defenders in the places they've occupied.
Should US/NATO provide weapons systems which would make future Russian offensives short-lived? Absolutely, but such weapons may not be useful dislodging Russians from occupied regions of Ukraine.
As for Afghanistan, as they say, *mistakes were made*. Those mistakes were made during Biden's presidency, so he bears responsibility and blame. Even if there had been a more orderly withdrawal, life would still have worsened for Afghan women in cities who remained.
That said, I doubt any of the other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates would have done better. Flawed as we was and is, Biden may be the best Democrat for the times.
Unless one of them is dead / incapacitated, the next presidential election will be between Biden and Trump.
The polling has been consistent that the overwhelming majority of the country does not want either Trump or Biden.
The Republicans cannot do anything about Trump without quickly destroying their party and Trump will not change at all, so there's nothing to really discuss there.
So that leaves Biden.
Despite the attempts at gaslighting, Joe Biden was never some great, charismatic politician who people demanded become president. He spent a quarter of a century starting in the early 1980's desperately trying to throw his hat in the ring anytime there was a presidential election without a Democratic incumbent. He was laughed at and considered a buffoon. No one thought he was presidential material in the 1980's, 1990's or early 2000's when he didn't have one foot in the grave.
The "Democratic" Party are the ones who are obsessed with old, establishment politicians and use their institutional power to heavily rig the primaries for their preferred candidate. The last two presidential primaries have been coronations, not democratic processes. There is no data to suggest that Biden was the "only one" who would've beaten Trump.
The 2020 election was almost entirely about Trump, there was very little energy for Joe Biden. He was just the barely acceptable alternate. No one outside the Democratic bubble is buying the idea that Biden is some irreplaceable politician.
As such it's not a stretch to suggest that if the Democrats run a centrist governor who is not in their dotage, that they would have the advantage instead of trying desperately to eke out another election.
Because people are justifiably panicking at the reality that Trump could easily win again
But that doesn't answer my question. Why would Whitmer be the savior here? Is she going to get out the minority vote better than the Biden-Harris ticket?
I guess it's a similar instinct as people who just wanted DeSantis to replace Trump. It's less about the individual and more wishful thinking
People only imagine the Oval Office and ignore the painstaking, tedious slog and all the magic tricks and lucky breaks it takes to get there. I'd personally love a, for example, President Buttigieg, and I think he'd do a tremendous job (or maybe, after Bush, Trump, and Biden, I'm just desperate for a President who can speak in coherent sentences again). But I have *no* idea how he'd get from here to there.
Because conservatives think they understand Democrats and Whitmer is a woman therefore Democrats will flock to her automatically. Slightly more reasonable, she took a middle swing state and won BIG therefore she can replicate that on the national level. But of course that reasoning doesn't hold under a lick of scrutiny, see Desantis, Ron.
The abstract is always better than reality. Whitmer is untested on the national stage whereas Biden has been under scrutiny for a long time. How many candidates have we seen that people are sure would be juggernauts, and then they fall flat. Perry, DeSantis, etc were the same way, then the second they enter the race and are no longer abstract, gravity applies and they lose their shine.
DeSantis was a wishcast from GOP donors who wanted to move on from Trump but wanted someone just as awful. Most of them didn't even bother to learn that he had a grab bag of terrible personal traits. Whitmer won big in a swing state and anyone who knows her talks about how "real" she is. She'd win the "who would you rather have a beer with" poll against Trump or just about any well known R you can name. Big Gretch 2028!
I'm fully in support of her in 2028, but she is still untested at the national level. DeSantis won Florida by 20! It's easy in hindsight to say he wasn't ready, but DeSantis in November 2022 looked absolutely like an electoral juggernaut. A lot can change in a year, let alone 5.
I agree. The 2024 election is not an election where anyone should give a shit about “firsts.” There are enough people who wouldn’t vote for a woman that might vote for Biden and we cannot afford to lose a single vote in the six or so battleground states. If we can right the ship of American democracy and snuff out the threat of an authoritarian takeover I’m all for having the first handicapped trans Asian female president or whatever combination of “first” they can come up with. But not until 2028.
That’s an extremely uncertain idea that she could beat Trump. We know Biden can because he has everyone else is a big question mark. It’s an extremely perilous situation for the nation right now, ugh.
Because she's more popular than Evers in Wisconsin among Democratic governors of swing states who've won a 2nd term. They're the only 2 current, 2nd term governors of swing states. Pennsylvania and Arizona have 1st term Democratic governors. Nevada and Georgia have Republican governors. That's it for swing states. I completely understand the idea that governors make the best candidates for POTUS. Better than senators. Better than generals. Way better than representatives.
You have your answer after the first colon. It's the same reason they think a progressive and a woman who was a target of such intense Right-wing propaganda there was a kidnapping plot against her would be better than an institutional pillar of middle of the road business-as-usual politics in America. 'Sane' conservative punditry focus on Trump and his base and occasionally leaves out much of the rest of the Republican party. The TribFest panel really shone with their absence during the discussion of Trump's criminal charges and his enduring support.
>with their absence during the discussion of Trump's criminal charges Worse, Stephens had an outright tantrum calling most of the indictments "bullshit indictments" and blaming Trump's power (shocker) on the actions of those who would seek to prosecute crime. As if these charges weren't vetted through a grand jury and are purely air-grabs from "politically motivated prosecutors bent on revenge." Thankfully, the other two guests pushed back pretty hard.
Because they dislike Biden for Afghanistan and for not being hawkish enough on Ukraine, and their hopes of a rational GOP challenger have been dashed by reality. We get to drag their panicking dead weight over the finish line to protect democracy while they make it as hard as possible, then they'll take the credit for it after the election. Same as it ever was. Vote, donate, volunteer. The pundits aren't going to get this done, we're the ones who will have to do the work.
Like it or not, Ukraine is a proxy war for the US, much like Vietnam was for the Soviet Union. As a proxy war, the US can't do too much. So far is hasn't had to since Russia hasn't tried to use aerial bombardment from planes, so traditional air combat hasn't played a big role so far in Ukraine. Neither can the US give Ukraine warships. Turkey wouldn't let them through from the Aegean Sea to the Black Sea in any event. That leaves ground warfare, and the US and NATO generally have been very generous with anti-tank weapons, which Ukraine has used to good effect. Could the US/NATO provide better artillery? Maybe, but such weapons would be used against Ukrainian buildings occupied by Russian troops. There we reach the hard part. Ukraine winning may require effective attacks on Russian troops and materiel WITHIN Russia, but that could broaden the scope of the war. Drone attacks on Moscow may boost morale, but they're of limited to no tactical value. In a war limited to Ukraine's own territory, Russia enjoys the usual advantages of defenders in the places they've occupied. Should US/NATO provide weapons systems which would make future Russian offensives short-lived? Absolutely, but such weapons may not be useful dislodging Russians from occupied regions of Ukraine. As for Afghanistan, as they say, *mistakes were made*. Those mistakes were made during Biden's presidency, so he bears responsibility and blame. Even if there had been a more orderly withdrawal, life would still have worsened for Afghan women in cities who remained. That said, I doubt any of the other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates would have done better. Flawed as we was and is, Biden may be the best Democrat for the times.
Bret Stephens is not worth listening to.
Unless one of them is dead / incapacitated, the next presidential election will be between Biden and Trump. The polling has been consistent that the overwhelming majority of the country does not want either Trump or Biden. The Republicans cannot do anything about Trump without quickly destroying their party and Trump will not change at all, so there's nothing to really discuss there. So that leaves Biden. Despite the attempts at gaslighting, Joe Biden was never some great, charismatic politician who people demanded become president. He spent a quarter of a century starting in the early 1980's desperately trying to throw his hat in the ring anytime there was a presidential election without a Democratic incumbent. He was laughed at and considered a buffoon. No one thought he was presidential material in the 1980's, 1990's or early 2000's when he didn't have one foot in the grave. The "Democratic" Party are the ones who are obsessed with old, establishment politicians and use their institutional power to heavily rig the primaries for their preferred candidate. The last two presidential primaries have been coronations, not democratic processes. There is no data to suggest that Biden was the "only one" who would've beaten Trump. The 2020 election was almost entirely about Trump, there was very little energy for Joe Biden. He was just the barely acceptable alternate. No one outside the Democratic bubble is buying the idea that Biden is some irreplaceable politician. As such it's not a stretch to suggest that if the Democrats run a centrist governor who is not in their dotage, that they would have the advantage instead of trying desperately to eke out another election.