" Biden’s departure will be defined — even for a once-world-famous talker — not by what he has said, but by what he hasn’t"
To me his presidency has been defined by action, not words. He leaves behind a far better situation than he started with...Covid just being one example, but the economy as well. He sowed competency not chaos. And he did it without voluminous, vitriolic tweets.
Hi Rich, this may be splitting hairs, but — having thought a lot about how best to describe the election! — I think “decisive” is a fair descriptor while, for example, “landslide” is not. “Decisive” because there is no asterisks to it: Trump came out on top by every metric. He won the popular vote... he won every swing state... practically every county in the country swung in his direction. There is very little comfort for Democrats to take in the results, and every reason for Republicans to take them as a vote of confidence. That’s why I think “decisive” is appropriate. It wasn’t a mixed bag: it was a clear, stark outcome. As you point out, though, that doesn’t change the fact that it was a close race in the sweep of American history — not a “landslide” of epic proportions, as Trump claims. This may be a nuanced cut to draw (and one that could annoy either side), but I think it’s the best way to think about the results. Wrote a little more about this here if you’re interested: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/how-close-was-the-2024-election
Harris should return to her law enforcement roots and search for her bottom (in the archaic meaning of that word.) The Gore VP vignette is another good reminder that character means something.
Thank-you for the thought provoking article and reminding me that at one time we had political leaders that were ethical, that believed in the Constitution.
"[Nixon and Humphrey] would both go on to mount another run for president. This time, Nixon won; Humphrey lost (he was denied even his party’s nomination)."
Um...what did you mean by that last parenthetical statement? LBJ--the incumbent President--chose not to run for reelection; he then arranged for Humphrey--his vice-president--to receive the nomination. Humphrey would then go on to lose to Nixon in the GE.
Are you perhaps alluding to Humphrey's late-in-the-day, hail-Mary run in 1976? I lived through that election and nobody--nobody--thought it was anything but a vanity run.
Hi David, in that whole paragraph, I’m referring to Nixon and Humphrey’s activities after losing the presidency as sitting VPs. Sorry if that was unclear. So the sentence you highlight is a reference to Humphrey’s 1972 bid for the Democratic nomination. (He considered running again in 1976 but decided against it.) His ’72 bid was not, as I understand it, a vanity exercise: Humphrey genuinely didn’t want McGovern to win the Democratic nomination and tried hard to stop it. For several months, Humphrey was leading in the national polls and even ended up with more primary votes (but not delegates) than McGovern. After the nomination contest was over, McGovern offered Humphrey the VP slot — but Humphrey declined.
Ah, fair enough. I had completely forgotten about that one. My mistake. Dunno why I thought Humphrey ran in 1976: I do know that he was already suffering from the cancer that would shortly kill him.
OK, I looked it up in Wikipedia: my memory wasn't entirely faulty, as Wikipedia states that "On April 12, 1976, Chairman of the New Jersey Democratic Party State Senator James P. Dugan said the selection of a majority of uncommitted delegates could be interpreted as a victory for Humphrey, who had indicated his availability as a presidential candidate for the convention. Humphrey announced his choice to not enter the New Jersey primary nor authorize any committees to work to support him during an April 29, 1976, appearance in the Senate Caucus Room. Even after Jimmy Carter had won enough delegates to clinch the nomination, many still wanted Humphrey to announce his availability for a draft."
So my comment about a "vanity run" was not entirely misplaced, since at the time all that coy talk about "being available for a draft" was understood to be a way of going after the nomination without actually running in the primaries, which at that point was largely precluded anyhow. I also recall a lot of people saying "a vote for 'Uncommitted' is a vote for Humphrey" and that there was a lot of tacit maneuvering between Humphrey and Brown--e.g. Humphrey made no attempt to compete with Brown in California, and of course, Brown did not compete against the "uncommitted" slate in New Jersey--in what ultimately proved to be a doomed attempt to deny Carter a first-ballot victory at the convention.
P.S. According to Wikipedia, "In December 1975, a Gallup poll was released showing Humphrey and Ronald Reagan as the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for the following year's presidential election." So evidently it would not have been out of the question had he actually made his move earlier.
" Biden’s departure will be defined — even for a once-world-famous talker — not by what he has said, but by what he hasn’t"
To me his presidency has been defined by action, not words. He leaves behind a far better situation than he started with...Covid just being one example, but the economy as well. He sowed competency not chaos. And he did it without voluminous, vitriolic tweets.
“Decisively rejected” when it was the smallest margin of victory in many years.
Hi Rich, this may be splitting hairs, but — having thought a lot about how best to describe the election! — I think “decisive” is a fair descriptor while, for example, “landslide” is not. “Decisive” because there is no asterisks to it: Trump came out on top by every metric. He won the popular vote... he won every swing state... practically every county in the country swung in his direction. There is very little comfort for Democrats to take in the results, and every reason for Republicans to take them as a vote of confidence. That’s why I think “decisive” is appropriate. It wasn’t a mixed bag: it was a clear, stark outcome. As you point out, though, that doesn’t change the fact that it was a close race in the sweep of American history — not a “landslide” of epic proportions, as Trump claims. This may be a nuanced cut to draw (and one that could annoy either side), but I think it’s the best way to think about the results. Wrote a little more about this here if you’re interested: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/how-close-was-the-2024-election
Harris should return to her law enforcement roots and search for her bottom (in the archaic meaning of that word.) The Gore VP vignette is another good reminder that character means something.
Thank-you for the thought provoking article and reminding me that at one time we had political leaders that were ethical, that believed in the Constitution.
"[Nixon and Humphrey] would both go on to mount another run for president. This time, Nixon won; Humphrey lost (he was denied even his party’s nomination)."
Um...what did you mean by that last parenthetical statement? LBJ--the incumbent President--chose not to run for reelection; he then arranged for Humphrey--his vice-president--to receive the nomination. Humphrey would then go on to lose to Nixon in the GE.
Are you perhaps alluding to Humphrey's late-in-the-day, hail-Mary run in 1976? I lived through that election and nobody--nobody--thought it was anything but a vanity run.
Hi David, in that whole paragraph, I’m referring to Nixon and Humphrey’s activities after losing the presidency as sitting VPs. Sorry if that was unclear. So the sentence you highlight is a reference to Humphrey’s 1972 bid for the Democratic nomination. (He considered running again in 1976 but decided against it.) His ’72 bid was not, as I understand it, a vanity exercise: Humphrey genuinely didn’t want McGovern to win the Democratic nomination and tried hard to stop it. For several months, Humphrey was leading in the national polls and even ended up with more primary votes (but not delegates) than McGovern. After the nomination contest was over, McGovern offered Humphrey the VP slot — but Humphrey declined.
Ah, fair enough. I had completely forgotten about that one. My mistake. Dunno why I thought Humphrey ran in 1976: I do know that he was already suffering from the cancer that would shortly kill him.
OK, I looked it up in Wikipedia: my memory wasn't entirely faulty, as Wikipedia states that "On April 12, 1976, Chairman of the New Jersey Democratic Party State Senator James P. Dugan said the selection of a majority of uncommitted delegates could be interpreted as a victory for Humphrey, who had indicated his availability as a presidential candidate for the convention. Humphrey announced his choice to not enter the New Jersey primary nor authorize any committees to work to support him during an April 29, 1976, appearance in the Senate Caucus Room. Even after Jimmy Carter had won enough delegates to clinch the nomination, many still wanted Humphrey to announce his availability for a draft."
So my comment about a "vanity run" was not entirely misplaced, since at the time all that coy talk about "being available for a draft" was understood to be a way of going after the nomination without actually running in the primaries, which at that point was largely precluded anyhow. I also recall a lot of people saying "a vote for 'Uncommitted' is a vote for Humphrey" and that there was a lot of tacit maneuvering between Humphrey and Brown--e.g. Humphrey made no attempt to compete with Brown in California, and of course, Brown did not compete against the "uncommitted" slate in New Jersey--in what ultimately proved to be a doomed attempt to deny Carter a first-ballot victory at the convention.
P.S. According to Wikipedia, "In December 1975, a Gallup poll was released showing Humphrey and Ronald Reagan as the leading Democratic and Republican candidates for the following year's presidential election." So evidently it would not have been out of the question had he actually made his move earlier.