What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Bauer]

I knew that Trump would win after the incoherent debate performance.  There was no recovery from that because it showed so much ineptitude and complicity of the democrats not to replace Biden.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Thank goodness we avoided electing a mentally declining octogenarian as President. 

[Valmy]

I knew that Trump would win after the incoherent debate performance.  There was no recovery from that because it showed so much ineptitude and complicity of the democrats not to replace Biden.

One would think the corruption, traitorous actions, and ineptitude of Trump would have been a bigger deal.

Anyway I had been in agony over his decision to run again from the moment it became clear he was going to do it. Disastrous. There is not really anything more that needs to be said.

A full and open Primary was necessary. I knew it then and it is obvious now.

It is hard to figure out what the purpose of the complicity was besides a determination to lose. It wasn't like Biden was that popular. He was stained by the inflation issues.

[Bauer]

I knew that Trump would win after the incoherent debate performance.  There was no recovery from that because it showed so much ineptitude and complicity of the democrats not to replace Biden.

One would think the corruption, traitorous actions, and ineptitude of Trump would have been a bigger deal.

Yes one would think, but when the other side had been harping for years about Biden's decline it was a massive boost, and simultaneous demoralization of Democrat supporters.  Or at least that's how i saw it as an outsider.

[DGuller]

The moment it became obvious to me that I've been in denial about Biden's decline was his Mitterand moment.  To me that's always a tell-tale sign when the last few decades of someone's memory just get blocked out, even temporarily. 

I keep thinking that Democrats learned the wrong lessons from Republican success, when they themselves adopted no tolerance policy against dissent.  The circular firing squad of old may have not made them cohesive, but at the same time it made them resilient against catastrophic groupthink.  Clearly that resilience was gone by the time Biden became a problem.

[The Brain]

In Sweden senior politicians are in their 30s-50s, with the odd 20s or 60s thrown in. The American vampire-like obsession to be ruled by Antediluvians stands out.

[Solmyr]

Thank goodness we avoided electing a mentally declining octogenarian as President.

You didn't, the current one isn't declining anymore.

[Syt]

Thank goodness we avoided electing a mentally declining octogenarian as President.

You didn't, the current one isn't declining anymore.

If he calls "groceries" an "old-fashioned word" one more time ....

[Oexmelin]

People whose social and cultural capital make them especially susceptible to easily finding new employment seem to have completely ruled out the possibility of resigning over matters of principle.

[crazy canuck]

The Democratic aids got a lot of practice with the other geriatric members of Congress.

I think there is something to that - I saw the controversy over the article about Fetterman's health. And I do think there's a really worrying culture in DC (perhaps especially among Democrats which are more gerontocratic) of basically considering it prurient and inappropriate for the media to pry or cover the health and fitness of political leaders.

It's really, really not - it is exactly the job of the media.

From the NYTimes today

One reason may be that gerontocracy is increasingly the norm in American politics. More than a dozen senators are 75 or older; one, Iowa's Chuck Grassley, is in his 90s. "Covering for an aging politician is commonplace in modern Washington," write Tapper and Thompson, who quote Nikki Haley calling the Senate "the most privileged nursing home in the country." It's not surprising, then, that Washington Democrats didn't view Biden as someone who needed to retire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/16/opinion/biden-age-democrats-coverup.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Hk8.DusP.fBHTUZKhNO5O&smid=url-share

[viper37]

A full and open Primary was necessary. I knew it then and it is obvious now.

Has there ever been a primary with the President still intending to be re-elected?

[crazy canuck]

A full and open Primary was necessary. I knew it then and it is obvious now.

Has there ever been a primary with the President still intending to be re-elected?

Yes, a number of times

[DGuller]

A full and open Primary was necessary. I knew it then and it is obvious now.

Has there ever been a primary with the President still intending to be re-elected?

The primaries always happen, I guess it's just that the serious candidates stay out if the sitting president is running again, so they become mere formalities.  The last time a sitting president got derailed by primaries was 1968 with LBJ, but even then RFK only joined when LBJ dropped out.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The primaries always happen, I guess it's just that the serious candidates stay out if the sitting president is running again, so they become mere formalities.  The last time a sitting president got derailed by primaries was 1968 with LBJ, but even then RFK only joined when LBJ dropped out.

Seems the last time there was a serious contender to the incumbent was the 1992 Republican primary, but 41 still won it solidly.

[Razgovory]

If a sitting President faces a serious primary challenge then he is probably going to lose the general election though.