2028 will be the first race since 2016 without a pornstar-banging, insurrectionist, convicted fraudster reality TV star.
That is absolutely not certain. Sure, it probably won’t be trump, he’ll be too old to be capable by then. But the republicans could easily find someone meeting most of those criteria, and they still have 4 years to try an insurrection
If he loses this election are you expecting him to not run in 28 or are you expecting his poor lifestyle choice to have him taking a dirt nap by then? I don’t really see him stepping aside for as long as he breathes and has legal trouble he can ameliorate by being in office.
I’m expecting the GOP to oust him for being no longer able to hide the fact that he is a weak incompetent loser and him drowning in more court cases and being even more unhinged and worse off than Biden before he dropped out.
But you’re right, he’ll probably still throw his name in during the primary. I don’t think he’ll be in the general though.
At his age and at his level of health, I honestly expect him to be dead by 2028.
The GOP doesn’t have the ability to oust Trump. He’s completely taken over the party apparatus - his daughter-in-law became the co-chair this year and the chair is a loyalist. He has enough support from his base to win any primary.
The only way he’s not the GOP nominee in 2028 is if he dies or is in too poor health to do his rallies.
At the end of the day, its a team sport for them. Even hardcore football fans will turn on a shitty quarterback, and Trump’s shittyness will be on full display if it becomes apparent he’s all talk and actually dragging down the GOPs chances of winning general elections. But I guess I’m getting ahead of myself, 2024 is all that matters right now.
If he loses this election I expect him to be either in jail, in Russia, or in an urn by the time the next election comes.
If he loses this one why would Russia bother to support him? They already got whatever Intel he personally had at this point, they could just cut their losses (which historically does include defenestration).
Because Putin would love to host a “ruler-in-exile” of any Western country, even if the claim is totally made up. Trump has a political movement behind him and all he needs to do is post on social media to get his acolytes to do all sorts of stuff. Putin would still find that valuable.
It’s back in fashion, so there probably is a bush in the election.
I’ll show myself out…
Axios - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Axios:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/06/kamala-first-election-without-biden-bush-clinton
Bush and Clinton I get but it seems like Biden was included in this statistic just to bridge the Obama years to 2016. The Bidens aren’t exactly a political dynasty.
Biden has been on as many National Ballots as Bill and Hillary.
That’s because the Clintons aren’t a “dynasty” either. They’re just husband and wife. It’s certainly unique for a husband and wife to both be successful in politics, but a dynasty implies multiple generations.
The “Clinton Dynasty” is just a right-wing talking point, and has been since the '90s.
That’s not what the statistic is, though, it’s Biden vs both Clintons combined. There are two general election Bushes, two general election Clintons, one general election Biden.
National Ballots
B8den 3
Biden is one guy. Including him here makes no sense
I was very against Hillary running in 2016 for this specific reason. I don’t care how qualified a candidate is. If they are related or in a relationship with a previous president I don’t fucking want them. This is America goddammit, we aren’t supposed to have nobility.
Add in Dole, Kennedy, and Nixon and you’ve covered every election since 1952, including this one.
Ok, I understand Bush and Clinton, but is Biden really a dynasty?
I mean I can similarly say that Harris-Trump is the first race since 1972 without Bush, Clinton, Biden, Reagan and Carter.
I don’t think it speaks for the US being run by dynasties, but rather that the top of the political landscape is not extremely dynamic. I think name recognition is a huge deal in the US, which would also help explain Reagan and Trump.
yeah its like bush and clinton cover up to 2016 and biden is only because of the last two elections. honestly clinton is just because hilary has run. bush is the only really one where offices were held at two different times
yeah its like bush and clinton cover up to 2016
You’re forgetting 2008 and 2012.
im going in date order so I meant 1980 to 2016
Hell, even the Clintons are more of a power couple than a dynasty.
While the inclusion of Biden seems somewhat artificial, I think that is missing the point.
It’s not a coincidence that he’s president because of his time as Obama’s VP, where name recognition and branding seem to be powerful forces. Hell, it’s easy to forget that Trump became president because of a lifetime of branding.
The other point being highlighted is that a good amount of the hype around Harris & Walz is likely that this is kinda the first presidential election since 1992 in which the boomers have gotten out of the way.
Bush Jr, Trump and Bill Clinton were all born in the summer of 1946 (seriously, June, July and August, it’s crazy). Hillary in 1947, and Biden 1942 (not technically a boomer, but pretty close). Obama is a major exception here, born in 1961, with McCain 1936 and Romney 1947.
Harris was born 1964, and so was Walz … so basically older X-gen. 22 years younger than Biden and 18 than Trump. If Harris wins, it will likely mark a step transition from 40s-born presidents to 60s-70s-born presidents.
