Joe Biden has been sworn-in as the 46th US president.
He's already 78. Is he going to give it another shake in 2024? Seems like a stretch, surely?
If not, VP Kamala Harris seems like the presumptive nominee. She'll have had an unmatched platform and will presumably count on the support of the Democratic establishment, including Biden himself.
If it comes to that, I think it would be a mistake to simply "anoint" her and clear the field, allowing her to run without a competitive primary. The closest analogy is probably Al Gore at the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. But more recently, there's also the example of HRC in 2016. I hope they don't spend the next four years building her up that way.
I think that kind of fix backfired for Clinton in 2016 and I'm not sure it would be good for Harris either, who is smart and charismatic but remains unproven as a campaigner. Her 2016 primary run, for example, was a debacle. She might end up being the best canddiate in 2024 - again, assuming Biden doesn't seek re-election. But she should fight for it. The idea that party insiders have simply picked her would, I think, not help her chances.
I'm not sure what that field could potentially look like so far in advance - Buttigieg? Cuomo? Newsom? Yang? AOC? Klobuchar? - but it might not be the lay-down misère for Harris the party would like.
We're a long way out and a lot can change, not least with regard to the Republican Party and the challenger it presents.
Nonetheless, I think a competitive primary would be preferable to simply clearing the field and gifting Harris the nomination.
He's already 78. Is he going to give it another shake in 2024? Seems like a stretch, surely?
If not, VP Kamala Harris seems like the presumptive nominee. She'll have had an unmatched platform and will presumably count on the support of the Democratic establishment, including Biden himself.
If it comes to that, I think it would be a mistake to simply "anoint" her and clear the field, allowing her to run without a competitive primary. The closest analogy is probably Al Gore at the end of the Clinton presidency in 2000. But more recently, there's also the example of HRC in 2016. I hope they don't spend the next four years building her up that way.
I think that kind of fix backfired for Clinton in 2016 and I'm not sure it would be good for Harris either, who is smart and charismatic but remains unproven as a campaigner. Her 2016 primary run, for example, was a debacle. She might end up being the best canddiate in 2024 - again, assuming Biden doesn't seek re-election. But she should fight for it. The idea that party insiders have simply picked her would, I think, not help her chances.
I'm not sure what that field could potentially look like so far in advance - Buttigieg? Cuomo? Newsom? Yang? AOC? Klobuchar? - but it might not be the lay-down misère for Harris the party would like.
We're a long way out and a lot can change, not least with regard to the Republican Party and the challenger it presents.
Nonetheless, I think a competitive primary would be preferable to simply clearing the field and gifting Harris the nomination.
Last edited: