Before I begin my (too long) response, I gotta say, really heartening to read much of this, criddic.criddic3 wrote
As a former Republican, I can attest to the fact that Republicans used to actually talk sensibly about policy. Even then, I didn't always agree with everything in the platform, but the candidates were usually people with worthwhile credentials and who were mostly there with the intent to actually govern once they got the job.
The best thing I can say about Chris Christie is that he's doing a real service in being the main voice that says "Trump isn't the good guy you think he is," but it's way too late for that kind of wake up call in the GOP. Had he done it in 2020, maybe it could have resonated more. There are Republican voters out there who don't like Trump, but they hate Democrats more.
Ramaswamy is way worse than Nixon. I'm not of that generation; one removed (barely a 1977 baby), but at least Nixon had an actual interest in doing things for the country. The favorite seems to be his creation of the EPA, but he was also the guy who essentially said "okay so Kennedy might have stolen some votes in Chicago and cost me a close election but I'm gonna let it go and maybe I can come back someday." For all his personal flaws, he wasn't interested in being a dictator and believed in democracy. I'm not sure Ramaswamy does.
Nikki Haley is trying to make a case on policy grounds vs. Trump, but I don't think she has much of a chance here. The best she can hope for is being VP. Trump recently said he might like to have a woman on the ticket (probably to counter Kamala Harris).
While most of the country seems not to want it, this is likely going to be the first presidential re-rematch since 1956. I just don't understand why President Biden's numbers aren't better after all the good work he's done. But former Senator Claire McCaskill said something on Morning Joe that made sense: President Obama's numbers were almost identical in 2011 and he still won over Mitt Romney (who I voted for, full disclosure) in 2012 pretty handily.
a) Well, certainly not anymore. A lot of these people seem to hate the notion of governing.
b) I don't mind that Christie is doing this. My father donated to Christie's campaign. He only voted against a Democrat once (Carter, voted Anderson) but he said if Christie was the nominee, he'd vote for him out of gratitude. But I don't think Christie is connecting with this strategy. A candidate needs to lay out a vision for the country. He isn't dong that. But the primary is still young.
c) Sorry for not being clear. When I say "He's my Nixon," I meant the young Nixon of 46-52, the Red Baiter whom a generation of Democrats learned to despise.
d) I don't think there's a chance Trump picks Haley as a running mate. He demands absolutely loyalty and she has criticized him too many times.
e) This is going to be the first Presidential re-match since 1956 and the first rematch between a former President and a sitting President from opposite parties since 1892. I think that's the more significant comparison. My understanding of 1912 when Roosevelt challenged Taft is that once Roosevelt got to the general, both he and Wilson largely ignored Taft and challenged each other. The Cleveland-Harrison one is the one that feels most accurate, and for obvious reasons frightening. This is going to be a very boring comparison but I found quite a few parallels between the Clinton-Trump match-up and the Blaine-Cleveland match-up in that the former(s) were pols with strong followings but in their years of service had built up a few too many blemishes on their record (Burnt letters = deleted emails) and both Trump and Cleveland were New Yorkers with sex scandals following them. Although Cleveland had (apparently) a respected political resume from Buffalo and New York. There are obviously parallels that don't hold up (a popular-electoral split but not in that year, not in that order) but I've been concerned about Biden-Harrison parallels in general. Both are figures who aren't connecting publicly, both are figures for whom their establishment have real concerns about political viability going into the next election, both have been tarred for spending concerns (Harrison's "Billion Dollar Congress"), but also my understanding of Harrison (like Biden) had ambitious agendas that he couldn't quite get into law as he wanted. Oh, and a mixed relationship with their Vice Presidents (although nothing on par with the Lodge Bill). (NOTE: I think in this comparison, Newsom is McKinley?)
Anyway, for obvious reasons, I pray Biden is more of an Eisenhower than a Harrison. That was far too much a tangent for anyone's benefit. Back to the point:
Claire McCaskill has a point but history doesn't repeat it rhymes. I could run the gamut of similarities and differences between the two candidacies, but I think the biggest difference between Obama and Biden is that with Biden you have to squint a little more to see the impact. Obama going into 2012 had the ACA (coming up), killing Bin Laden, a recovering economy, a still hopeful Democratic Party rallied around him, a successor (Hilary Clinton) on the horizon, and opposition that often times looked pretty foolish. Biden going into 2024 has no big fucking deal legislation, a recovering economy that most Americans are dissatisfied with, a traumatized Democratic Party fearfully rallying around him, a successor (Kamala Harris) that nobody believes can win a general election, and opposition that often times looks pretty terrifying.
Claire McCaskill is a good person to speak on this topic because she only got re-elected in 2012 because she ran against an opponent (remember Todd Akin) who spoke about "legitimate rape" and said "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." He then apologized and Missourians voted him out 55-39. But I wonder... does Claire McCaskill think that Missourians voted for her over Todd Akin because they thought what he said was wrong or because he apologized, looked foolish, and basically conceded the argument?
I remember 2012 being a non-event at the time but I think it's actually pretty consequential. It's probably the last election we'll ever see where Republicans ever apologize for anything they say. We saw glimmers of the GOP to come in with Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie, but Republicans now understand that (most/too many) of their voters value strength over anything else. So no matter how wrong they are, they'll never apologize again.
