How plausible is it that Biden serves 8 years as POTUS, then Kamala Harris succeeds him?

Biden serving 8 years: it's not in his best interest mentally or physically, but yeah it seems like he will run again and he does have a good shot of winning a second term. Besides the prediction I've made several times, Biden is facing what looks like an incredibly fractured GOP that took a week to elect it's House Speaker. Not only that but despite not having the votes for like a dozen ballots the GOP establishment (this includes Trump now) overwhelmingly forced Boring Loser Kevin onto their base. Why? Because Kevin has proven himself to be a Trump guy. And for whatever stupid ass reason the MSM largely sided with Loser Trumpfan McCarthy as the next Speaker becuase "muh Democracy must prevail" rather than ask the question that any truly honest person would ask: "WHY IS THIS LOSER STILL TRYING TO BECOME SPEAKER?"

It's almost like Loser Kevin had an entitlement mentality. He viewed the Speakership as his, like he owned it, like he had a personal right to it like it was property he inherited from Pelosi. Again, I find it incredible that folks (not just on the right but on the left) acted like that THIS LOSER who completely fInksed up the 2022 midterms just inherently deserved to be House Speaker?

Now what does that have to do with 2024? Simple: 2024 is next year and the GOP had a controversial leadership election 22 months before it. If this had happened in 2021 it wouldn't be a problem but the voting public will remember this, even if it wasn't as memorable as say Jan 6th. Let me be clear here: Loser Kevin got the Speakership because he kissed Donald Trump's ass. It's as simple as that. Basically Trump has now become the establishment, he defied the Freedom Caucus supporters who backed him without question for years. He's become part of the swamp, his name is basically branded on McCarthy's backside, and he is now speaking freely of "traitorous Republicans" whose only crime is thinking about running in 2024.

Does this sound familiar to a certain Democratic politician that we all know about who ran again in 2016 despite having a record of failure because certain elements of the Democratic establishment believed the crown was inherently hers? I said it before I'll say it again: Hillary and the Don have strikingly similar character flaws. It's almost jarring. Both seem to believe on a level that they are God's Elect and that everyone should move aside and just clap as they ascend to power. Nevermind how offputting it is to voters when someone walks around waving their dick and demanding that voters have a duty to vote for them?

Basically, the GOP right now has a Candidate Entitlement Problem. It seems now that Trump and his allies have a substantial amount of support among the Republican Establishment and officeholders. And he is now getting his own crazies (MTG LOL) to support "establishmentarian" choices for party leadership on the mere basis that said "establishmentarians" support him. Trump's whole appeal in 2016 was that he was the outsider, he wasn't one of the guys running on ages old Reaganomics and bible bashing social conservatism. Now? He might as well have the GOP leadership bent over his knee as he sticks his hot poker into their left ass cheek. Screw the base and what they want.

I suspect that many posters on here will think that I'm overstating the case here. But a healthy party that has unified and strong support among it's base would not have gone through a week long leadership battle, regardless of whether or not you think the Freedom Caucus protesters were making any points. I don't like Matt Gaetz but let's not lie the man made several very valid points against Kevin McCarthy, namely that Kevin McCarthy was a gigantic ass loser who delivered beyond disappointing results in a midterm election that would have been served on a silver platter to even a slightly more competent and coherent Republican Party. The Democrats in 2019 might have had a few moderate heroes challenge Pelosi for the leadership but she got that resolved before the vote even happened and even when Democrats were on the debate stage they were all clearly united on the mission of defeating Trump in 2020. No Democratic candidates were throwing massive shade on their opponents like Trump is doing months before most candidates even announce they're running.

Basically the GOP seems to be on the verge of a bitter and acrimonious civil war that will make the Democratic divisions of 2015-2020 seem like child's play. Joe Biden had the foresight (and yeah the respect) to see that he needed Berners to support him during the general election. He held a lot of punches that other "establishment" Dems threw at Sanders. Even though tensions were boiling hot in the Democratic Party at the time between establishment moderates and Bernie types Biden took the sensible approach after winning and spoke very highly of Bernie Sanders and did other things to cement Bernie's support for the ticket.

Something tells me that whoever wins the GOP nomination, whether it's Trump or someone else, they will not have this quality. They will be (just like Hillary Clinton in 2016) out for blood. Even after winning the nomination I would fully expect the GOP nominee's supporters in the media and other institutions to throw major shade (just like Clinton's supporters did) against their primary opponents for "enabling Biden to make x argument" and other insinuations in a petty bid to establish party dominance (obviously in the case Trump isn't the GOP nominee the GOP nominee will be addressing him as the spoiler third party candidate). These petty personal beefs, this inability to let things go, is really going to fInks the GOP over in 2024.

Now as for Kamala Harris? Ngl I never understood this woman's appeal but as I said once before there were a lot of folks who didn't understand Richard Nixon's appeal in 1955. There were people who were mad concerned about Ike having a heart attack because Richard Nixon would become President. As much as breadskulled liberals want to think of Richard Nixon as a brave center left Republican nowdays back then nobody viewed him as such. He was viewed as basically a red bashing (to a much greater extent than JFK, who for some weird reason liberals like to think of as a right wing Bush Republican) mysogynistic corrupt business boy who was quite divisive in his rhetoric at times. Nixon failed to win the 1960 Presidential Election but later (after recovering from a disastrous showing in the 1962 California Gubernatorial and supporting GOP candidates in 1966) re-emerged as the de facto party leader and win in 1968 among a year of chaos and disorder.

Maybe Harris will be just as lucky. Maybe events will proceed in a way that makes the environment much more favorable to her. Maybe, just like Nixon, she will become much smarter and more adept in her political approach. That is possible. On the debate stage she is gifted. Sure Mike Pence sounded dumb, but anyone remember how not dumb he sounded in 2016? The problem is right now she doesn't seem to bring that same strength onto other things for whatever reason. I certainly don't think it's outside the realm of possibility she becomes the next president but more dominoes would have to fall for that to happen and the GOP probably would still not have it's Schiff together.

Plausible? Yes. Likely? No.

If I had to give percentages I'd say Biden winning re-election is definitely north of 90%. Him making it the full 8 years I put at about 75% (more than likely he makes it but at his age his health could rapidly deteriorate at any time, unlike Reagan this is a real concern. The dude is 80 years old.). Kamala Harris succeeding him as President right now I put a bit lower, maybe a 15% chance. Even if we ignore her current liabilities as a candidate more often than not Vice Presidents DON'T succeed the President they served with via a presidential election (death in office on the other hand has a pretty good record). To my recollection the only VPs who have immediately succeeded their President in office via an election are as follows:

John Adams
Martin Van Buren
George HW Bush

All three of these guys, by the way, were succeeding Presidents who (at the time at least) were considered highly successful Presidents who ended up in history books. ie NOTABLE FINKSING GUYS. It is also true that these guys were not that popular among their own party's bases. John Adams was seen as an asshole by half the population and 90% of his coworkers. Martin Van Buren was seen as a closet aristocrat who would "undo the Jacksonian Revolution" by many Democratic activists at the time. George HW Bush was seen as a liberal New Englander in the disguise of a Texas oil executive. As one can probably deduce I am one of many Democrats who are quite skeptical of Kamala Harris not only as a candidate but politically as well. Let me be the first to concede that based off of history, at least if Joe Biden's presidency goes well, she very well might join this short list if she manages to play her cards right and turn the ship around in five years. In today's age five years is an eternity: we've seen the political environment shift in much shorter time before.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 27, 2024, 03:21:10 PM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more