I would not be surprised if this became an "October surprise" to weaken Biden and the Democrats further.
By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him?
Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem.
Other parties out to get Biden are likely corporate lobbying groups as the Dems have been showing some backbone with regard to regulations in recent times.
Yes, since Dems always worked just fine for them too.
> You all are wealthy enough, he (Trump) said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil...
And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee.
> And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
This is extremely hand-wavy. To get down to specifics, look at the history of the opening of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. GOP opens it, Dems close it.
Look at EPA fuel efficiency regulations, which party increases them?
I understand being frustrated by how corporate-friendly both parties in the USA are, but to just throw your hands up in the air while stating "both sides" is ignoring reality and surrendering your agency.
So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?
Then Riyadh would prefer Biden. American fossil fuel producers are their competition.
(Not claiming knowledge about MBS’s preferences. Just underlining this isn’t as simple as implied.)
Riyadh and Houston have always been on great terms as they have common goals and common enemies.
The Dems propose moving to a green economy, this is terrible for all fossil fuel extractors.
Both candidates are ancient.
Some want different candidates. On both sides.
In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination.
The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.
Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected
Let's say there are two main political ideologies, kittens and puppies. There are two kitten candidates and one puppy candidate.
With a preferential voting system, if more people like kittens than puppies, a kitten will almost certainly win.
With an FPP system, the puppy will almost certainly win regardless of people's preference.
There are only two candidates in US elections because having a third candidate will almost certainly mean the least popular old codger will win.
The two-candidate presidential system is a consequence of a broken voting system.
Maybe someone can explain what I'm saying that incorrect.
An election is fundamentally binary: it has one winner and everyone else is equally a loser. There are other structures that don't fall prey to that, such as multi member districts or party lists. As long as the election has a unique outcome, everyone else is equivalently irrelevant.
The fact that they're both elderly is kind of a coincidence. It is true that older candidates are the ones with the longest track record of accomplishments and the most extensive alliances.
But the GOP candidate had little government experience and somewhat dubious business experience. He is nonetheless popular for his style and positions.
Both parties are very diverse and it's difficult to find someone tolerable to all. Many actively despise their party's candidate but the alternative to the consensus risks losing entirely. It is generally thought to be better to vote for a suboptimal candidate than a pessimal one, though some vocally disagree.
A young, charismatic candidate could come up next time around, but to be honest neither party seems to have one getting ready.
So here we stand, with our leaders entering the high positions of power well after they should have retired. In the president's case, his first run for the presidency was 32 years before he eventually won it in 2020. That spacing is the bulk of most people's working life.
In 2028 both parties will really have to figure something out. At least (hopefully) neither Trump nor Biden will be eligible to run.
Not accounting for death from old age making them physically ineligible, since that's also a very real concern at this point for both.
Which is why your comparison doesn't make sense to me--Haley is obviously the spicy one in the comparison.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 (For context see this excellent Jezebel article https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american... [2] and accompanying video https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8)
[2] which even cites Brother Malcolm himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s
But now that you made me think about it, Indian Malcolm X is probably Kshama Sawant or someone like that
[1] Although India loves socialism, it's like cricket and biscuits--stuff we inherited from white people.