Genuine question to Democrats: why so loyal to Biden?

[wnwnwn]

He owns the cons

[OSR stands with Israel]

Because he actually has gotten more done than the past 4 or 5 Presidents did in their first term? It's not hard to understand. Plus neither party has failed to renominate an incumbent in recent history.

The better question is why would Republicans nominated Trump when he clearly has extensive cognitive problems, has been indicted multiple 91 times and has caused a realignment in previous Republican strong holds. The country would be better off if Trump suspended his campaign, but clearly that's not happening. Biden is not the problem, Trump is. What even is the point of this thread?

He did not get more done than George W Bush in amount done. In W's first term he got his tax cuts passed, his education bill passed, medicare part d passed, the farm bill passed, partial birth abortion ban passed, and his entire foreign policy/national security agenda passed as well.

Congress pretty much was more deferential to W than they have been to any president in decades and W 100% got more things done than Biden has in his first term.

Most of that was a failure. No Child Left Behind was a mess and let's not even get started on the foreign policy being horrendous. Those tax cuts are still a major problem in terms of revenue. There is a difference between getting good things done and getting bad things done.

Most of Bush’s mistakes didn’t come to fruition till his 2nd term . In May of 2004, both parties still supported No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D was viewed as a major accomplishment. In terms of foreign policy , Afghanistan looked like a success then and Iraq had only started to go downhill then so in May of 2004 his presidency would have absolutely looked like a major success

[oraclebones]

I find the responses in this thread so interesting. A reasonable question asked in a reasonable way, and almost all the responses are super defensive. I think it shows that for Democrats who don’t openly admit that they wish Biden hadn’t run for re-election actually wish he hadn’t in some subconscious part of their mind, but then can only respond to suggestions that he shouldn’t have by acting like it’s an outlandish suggestion.

For those who say “he’s been so effective” or “he’s a nice guy,” even if you believe that 100% as a reason he should be re-elected, surely you can acknowledge that a significant portion of voters (like probably a majority) simply disagree, and that from a purely political perspective (i.e., putting aside governance or [ha] Biden’s wonderful personality), there’s a good chance that it’s tremendous folly for the party to stick with someone so unpopular. (Yes, you could say the same of Trump, and goodness knows I’m as stunned as anyone that an overwhelming majority of Americans haven’t roundly rejected him. But the question was specifically not about Trump; it was about Biden.)

Putting my cards on the table, I’m a former Democrat who gave up on the party about a decade ago when it became to obvious to me that the Democratic Party has no principles that I can really agree with it. I am politically far-left (like faaaaar left). But given a binary choice between a Democrat and Trump, there’s not the slightest uncertainty in my mind I’d prefer a Democratic president to  Trump. That’s why it’s so distressing Biden chose to run for re-election and party elites chose to fully support his decision when he’s obviously so unpopular.

For those who say “but he’s been so effective,” sorry, but that’s not how most people see it. You can say it’s not true, unfair, it’s the media’s fault, etc. You can say the voters are stupid, and you’d be right. But the fact is a majority of voters don’t agree with you about Biden. To speak on Trump briefly, it IS true that Republicans were similarly foolish in nominating Trump, in that any other person they might have nominated would likely sweep the floor with Biden, given how unpopular he is. But at least for Republicans, they can say their voters chose Trump (however bewilderingly insane that choice is).

As a side note, for those who say that primary challenges of incumbent presidents always weaken, or even doom, the president’s reelection chances, you may be getting the direction of causation wrong. If an incumbent faces an even somewhat serious challenge from within his own party, it may be because they’re seen as disappointing or ineffectual by voters generally (not just by the candidate challenging them). That same perception may be what dooms the president’s reelection chances, not the fact that they faced a primary challenge.

All this said, I don’t make any predictions about November. Biden might well win reelection, and we can all have some fun watching him further deteriorate for another 4 years. But if he loses, it will have been SOOOO obvious that it was a mistake to renominate him.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

To speak on Trump briefly, it IS true that Republicans were similarly foolish in nominating Trump, in that any other person they might have nominated would likely sweep the floor with Biden, given how unpopular he is. But at least for Republicans, they can say their voters chose Trump (however bewilderingly insane that choice is).

(The rest of your post is good, and I may respond to it as time permits, but this particular point is touching on being a factual error on a topic that should not be downplayed.)

How death threats get Republicans to fall in line behind Trump (January 2024)

Trump’s most fanatical followers have created a situation where challenging him carries not only political risks but also personal ones. Elected officials who dare defy the former president face serious threats to their well-being and to that of their families — raising the cost of taking an already difficult stand.

As a result, the threat of violence is now a part of the American political system, to the point where Republican officials are — by their own admissions — changing the way they behave because they fear it. For Richer, the price back in 2021 was high — and enough to prevent him from safely participating in his own party’s politics.

“Violence and threats against elected leaders are suppressing the emergence of a pro-democracy faction of the GOP,” writes Rachel Kleinfeld, an expert on political violence at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Absent threats, Kleinfeld argues, a move to Trump from inside the party — perhaps a more serious challenge in the presidential primary — might have had a better chance of getting off the ground.

In her paper, Kleinfeld notes a striking example of this effect at work — a comment by Kim Ward, the Trump-supporting Republican leader of the Pennsylvania state Senate, on what would happen if she spoke out against the former president.

“I’d get my house bombed tonight,” Ward said.

As someone who is generally pretty far-left-leaning myself, I think there is a great deal of perfectly fair criticism of Biden's re-nomination, about machine politics, donors, inside baseball, and fear of rocking the boat. But I don't believe a major factor in his re-nomination was threats of violence from his supporters targeting his opponents, with Biden's own not-so-subtle approval. (Doubtless one of our blue posters can find an example or two to the contrary - we are a country with over 300,000,000 people - but what I'm speaking of is pattern and practice, and that is only found within one party this election.)

[Minnesota Mike]

I mean, voters don’t really have a choice but to be loyal or open the door back up to Trump.

But party powerbrokers absolutely failed by refusing to talk him out of seeking re-election. Biden is being popularly ridiculed in ways we haven’t seen since Bush 43, yet Democrats don’t seem to see it or care.

Who exactly are these party power brokers who could talk Biden out of running?

As to the original question I'm loyal to Biden because I think he's done a good job and is the incumbent. From a political perspective a serious primary challenge would have left the party split and Biden still the likely nominee. And if Biden had decided not to run we would have had a contentious primary that could still be going on. Plus who exactly is this can't miss replacement candidate the Democrats could have run?

[DrScholl]

I mean, voters don’t really have a choice but to be loyal or open the door back up to Trump.

But party powerbrokers absolutely failed by refusing to talk him out of seeking re-election. Biden is being popularly ridiculed in ways we haven’t seen since Bush 43, yet Democrats don’t seem to see it or care.

Who exactly are these party power brokers who could talk Biden out of running?

As to the original question I'm loyal to Biden because I think he's done a good job and is the incumbent. From a political perspective a serious primary challenge would have left the party split and Biden still the likely nominee. And if Biden had decided not to run we would have had a contentious primary that could still be going on. Plus who exactly is this can't miss replacement candidate the Democrats could have run?

Too many random terminally online people think there is this huge power apparatus that controls who runs in the Democratic Party and that's just not true. If you ask who these "power brokers" are you won't get a name. It's all based on conspiracy.

[Electric Circus]

Biden's strength is with the party as an organization, not the party as media.

That's a welcome change from the media-focused populism of his predecessors, which has a lot to answer for, but insularity is a risk that comes with it.

[TheHegemonist]

I think that for most voters, the "safe" option is to just stick with the incumbent - who has proven they can win - rather than go with some unproven second option that *might* win but also could just as easily crash and burn. Even if Biden isn't a very strong candidate, replacing him with someone else has the potential to make things worse.

As to why Biden had no credible primary challenger (Dean Philips and co were not credible in my mind), primary challengers against sitting presidents seem to A) have little chance of beating the president and B) weaken the president and cause them to lose. You have Bush with Buchanan in '92, Carter with Ted Kennedy in '80, and Ford with Reagan in '76. Those are the most significant primary challenges to a president that most Americans can remember, and all ended up with the incumbent losing re-election in the general (go back a bit further to '68 and you have Johnson being chased out of the race by Eugene McCarthy and the eventual winner, Humphrey, losing to Nixon). So primary challengers to presidents do not have a great track record, and nobody wants to be the guy responsible for Trump coming back (this is another part of the equation - Democrats fear and hate Trump more than anything).

[AlterEgo]

I think that for most voters, the "safe" option is to just stick with the incumbent - who has proven they can win - rather than go with some unproven second option that *might* win but also could just as easily crash and burn. Even if Biden isn't a very strong candidate, replacing him with someone else has the potential to make things worse.

As to why Biden had no credible primary challenger (Dean Philips and co were not credible in my mind), primary challengers against sitting presidents seem to A) have little chance of beating the president and B) weaken the president and cause them to lose. You have Bush with Buchanan in '92, Carter with Ted Kennedy in '80, and Ford with Reagan in '76. Those are the most significant primary challenges to a president that most Americans can remember, and all ended up with the incumbent losing re-election in the general (go back a bit further to '68 and you have Johnson being chased out of the race by Eugene McCarthy and the eventual winner, Humphrey, losing to Nixon). So primary challengers to presidents do not have a great track record, and nobody wants to be the guy responsible for Trump coming back (this is another part of the equation - Democrats fear and hate Trump more than anything).

The real answer to the bolded was already brought up a few posts back, though. Primary challenges don't weaken the sitting president. The sitting president gets challenges because they're already weak.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think Biden has been an very good President.
But I absolutely wish he hadn’t run for reelection.
I made many, many posts of this board over the past year expressing this.
And at this point, he’s the only alternative to avoid electing Trump.

[MillennialModerate]

I don’t get it either.

And this is coming from someone who ALWAYS really liked Biden. In 2008, before Obama really took off and I believed he had a shot - I was rooting for Biden to win the nomination. I DESPERATELY wanted him to run in ‘16. And was thrilled when he won the nomination in ‘20.

But it’s time to move on.

He’s a good and decent man. One with many accomplishments to be proud of.

And I know you normally nominate a sitting President of your party. But this is a unique situation with both his age and his approval rating and perception. That to me means you move on. His stubbornness might contribute to really a cataclysmic result in November

[Del Tachi]

The polls show that Democrats aren't very loyal to Biden.  Only 82% currently approve of his presidency and a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

[VBM]

Most Democrats did want someone else to be the nominee in 2024, but voters are too lazy and defeatist.

[7,052,770]

a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

I guess those polls were wrong. Or else he reeled them back in somehow.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

I guess those polls were wrong. Or else he reeled them back in somehow.

It’s more like no one else stepped up to replace him

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He is the incumbent.

[7,052,770]

a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

I guess those polls were wrong. Or else he reeled them back in somehow.

It’s more like no one else stepped up to replace him

An inoffensive generic D Congressman jumped into the race and barely got any votes. If the majority of Democrats wanted Biden to be replaced, Phillips would have had enough appeal to most of them that he would have gotten a whole lot more votes than he got.

It's not like Biden squeaked one out and then I'm saying "haha I guess those polls were WRONG after alll!!!1" If that had happened, sure maybe the polls were right but Phillips just didn't have quite enough appeal to tap into it. But given the margins, it's pretty clear that was nothing for Phillips to tap into in the first place.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We aren't loyal to Biden it's to any D if Newsom defeats Harris then we will be loyal to him. We oppose Trump because of J6 Paul Ryan just said he won't vote for Trump

Even if Trump wins we will oppose him will all our might Democracy doesn't stop with eDays if the wrong person gets back in office Trump will be a Lame Duck is he wins, not able to run again in 28, his state crimes will follow him out the door in 28

[Bush did 311]

We know what we're getting with Biden. Another democrat could turn out to be worse. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both turned out much worse than their lofty campaigns sold them to be. Biden has been better to labor than either of his predecessors and there are not many democrats we have full trust in.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

I guess those polls were wrong. Or else he reeled them back in somehow.

It’s more like no one else stepped up to replace him

An inoffensive generic D Congressman jumped into the race and barely got any votes. If the majority of Democrats wanted Biden to be replaced, Phillips would have had enough appeal to most of them that he would have gotten a whole lot more votes than he got.

It's not like Biden squeaked one out and then I'm saying "haha I guess those polls were WRONG after alll!!!1" If that had happened, sure maybe the polls were right but Phillips just didn't have quite enough appeal to tap into it. But given the margins, it's pretty clear that was nothing for Phillips to tap into in the first place.

Most Democrats didn't want to -replace- Biden, they wanted him to step aside voluntarily.

It's kind of like a company who has a very loyal and well-liked older employee who is no longer as effectively able to do the job as a younger person would.  They don't have really grounds to fire this person, and doing so would get a very bad reaction from other employees, but they hope he retires sooner rather than later.

[emailking]

Not a Democrat but I feel loyalty so I'll answer. I agree in whole or in part with most of what he's done, >80%. He got us out of a war. I think he's the reason Ukraine is still hanging on. He fought like hell for and got some incredible legislation passed in the BIF and IRA (I think his experience as a Senator as instrumental in this). The economy is rocking. And I think he's the best President in my lifetime. I would have wanted hm for a 2nd term regardless but put up against Trump it's not even remotely a close call.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs are a Maga party for the rich I don't get why users on Atlas that aren't personally wealthy root for Trump Heatchanger, OSR

If Trump gets another term his silly tax cuts gonna be renewed


The WIZ poll Biden +6 is telling that Rs won't win, lesson you can't continue as a Natl party that gives giant tax cuts we need over 50% in taxes come 2040 , expand the Crt to 11 judges Childs and Leandro Krueger should be on that new Crt

[LabourJersey]

I'm loyal to the Democratic party and not necessarily Biden.

I have to admit that a lot of Biden's legislative accomplishments in the first 2 years, while impressive, are more the result of a more ideologically cohesive Democratic party.

Biden was admittedly not my first choice for President in the '20 primaries (or my second, third or fourth), but he was the nominee. And American presidents are uniquely insulated from political party pressure nowadays - there's a reason why only 1 modern president has ever resigned, and only one stepped down when he could run again (Truman, and that was an odd case).

I did think that there was benefit to incumbency, but at this point I'm not sure. In retrospect the benefit of incumbency that Obama, Bush and Clinton clearly had in their re-elections came from their ability to direct the narratives. Biden, partially because of his personality, partially because of his age, partially because of the media, cannot do this.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

a majority consistently said they wanted "someone else" as the nominee through 2022-23. 

I guess those polls were wrong. Or else he reeled them back in somehow.

It’s more like no one else stepped up to replace him

An inoffensive generic D Congressman jumped into the race and barely got any votes. If the majority of Democrats wanted Biden to be replaced, Phillips would have had enough appeal to most of them that he would have gotten a whole lot more votes than he got.

It's not like Biden squeaked one out and then I'm saying "haha I guess those polls were WRONG after alll!!!1" If that had happened, sure maybe the polls were right but Phillips just didn't have quite enough appeal to tap into it. But given the margins, it's pretty clear that was nothing for Phillips to tap into in the first place.

Phillips is a three term congressman. He was never a serious challenger to Biden. If someone like a Senator or governor or just anyone who had the experience and capability to be president ran it would’ve been different. The majority of democrats wanted to replace Biden yes, but with someone better.

Phillips literally just went around saying he wasn’t Biden so hey that must be better right? He didn’t alter policy alternatives or a list of qualifications for the office, just that he was simply someone different

[Obama24]

Lack of options thanks to the DNC.

I liked Biden as VP, but his administration has been way too far to the left for me. Not the far left in the traditional Marxian sense (that would actually be preferable) but they've pandered way too much to the cringe Twitter / academic left.

I'd have preferred virtually any younger more centrist Dem, or even Bernie. At least Bernie is an actual social Democrat, not a center right Dem pandering to the academic wing.