Joe Biden is (currently) President of the United States

i mean, think about it - it makes perfect sense.

From this morning:

I'm sure she's basking in Trump's humiliating exit, but yeah, watching someone being inaugurated who was such a non-starter in 2015 he had to step aside for her run, that can't be much fun.
― clemenza, Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:14 AM

He didn’t run because his eldest son had just died.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:39 AM

Not that it matters now, but I believe it was more likely a combination of the two.
― clemenza, Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:42 AM

have no idea if biden would have beaten Clinton in 2016 and no interest in having that conversation but the idea that she was such a strong candidate that she drove out the Vice President is pretty obviously not true. She demonstrably wasn’t a strong candidate!
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:43 AM

I disagree, caek. I think there was very much momentum at the time for that nomination to go to her (and then Sanders changed things). But like you, not a lot of interest in revisiting that.
― clemenza, Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:46 AM

And I don’t, mostly because someone will tell me to go fuck myself, and someone else will post “WHO CARES,” and someone else will ask a rhetorical question I take literally and stupidly try to answer. But if we can keep it polite, I think it’s an interesting example of how perceptions can change over time.

I started looking around--one of the luxuries or curses of semi-retirement, take your pick--and skimmed these five accounts of Biden dropping out, published in the immediate aftermath.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-biden-didnt-run

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/joe-biden-not-running-2016-election/index.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/10/21/joe-biden-didnt-run-because-he-couldnt-win

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-running-president/story?id=34338816

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/us/joe-biden-concludes-theres-no-time-for-a-2016-run.html

The New Yorker link doesn’t mention Beau Biden. The other four do, but they put more emphasis on Biden having run out of time to mount a challenge against Clinton.

CNN: Implicit in Biden’s remarks was a realization that Clinton’s position and organizational muscle in early voting states are just too strong for him to mount a credible challenge at such a late stage – just three-and-a-half months before first votes are cast.

U.S. News: In the end, Biden's decision wasn't solely about timing. It was about lacking a conceivable pathway to victory.

ABC: Though Biden said his family is far enough into their grief to handle the rigors of a presidential campaign, there’s too little time to make the prospect viable. “Unfortunately, I believe we're out of time; the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination," Biden said.

NYT: In a hurriedly arranged speech in the White House Rose Garden with President Obama at his side, Mr. Biden said that he and his family had overcome their grief at the death of his elder son enough to commit themselves to the rigors of a campaign. But with just days until the first filing deadlines, he said he had concluded that it was simply too late.

Honestly, when I initially posted, I had forgotten about the proximity of his son’s death--obviously, that was a big factor in his decision. But five months later, I think it was more that he didn’t think he could win, and that Hillary was a strong candidate at that point. Biden has run for president three times, and almost ran a fourth. (My guess is it crossed his mind in 1992, too, but the plagiarism incident was still way too close; no recollection if his name surfaced in 2004.) Presidential ambition is obviously part of his DNA--which is fine, you don’t become president without that. But absent Clinton, I think he most definitely would have run in 2016; he may even have mentioned his son’s death as one of the reasons he was running, like he did this time, rather than as a reason not to.

uh didn't the biden camp allege that Beau had explicitly asked Joe to run?

but october 2015 is way too late to announce and organize...bernie and hilary both announced their campaign in April 2015, the month before Beau died. Trump announced in June. And Biden started this campaign in April 2019.

anyway he got in there eventually, no harm done

Totally agree, and I definitely don't want to come across as insensitive to what he went through re his son's death. My own memory of the timeline was just kind of nagging at me.

congrats joe, hope you keep pissing off all the right people for the next four years

All Presidents Are Biden

scum

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsLy4xwVgAAHccq?format=jpg&name=small

did I say four years? nah — eight years

YOUNG N'REFINED

warren g. tryharding in that photo

I can't believe
Warren lowered tax on wealth

just two more presidents and we can complete the panini wallchart

I have seven fuckin bush srs, hate that

Has anybody seen the new president? https://www.instagram.com/p/CKSkiRzj3zc/?igshid=s865dtzbw4hh

Decker is - my- President.

This is very presidential.

NEW: The Biden admin is reopening an overflow facility in Texas for unaccompanied migrant children apprehended at the US-Mexico border. It comes amid an increase in apprehensions + reduced capacity limits at other facilities due to Covid-19. https://t.co/MYRvIr9gm6

— Priscilla Alvarez (@priscialva) February 2, 2021

"It comes amid an increase in apprehensions." It would be nice to know the time frame being referenced here by "amid". Also, it was reported that ICE literally refused to comply with Biden's EO stopping this policy and it isn't clear to me if ICE has yet decided to comply.

"Under President Donald Trump, the US-Mexico border operated under hardline policies intended to keep migrants out of the United States, including a policy that required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico until their court dates in the US and a public health order allowing quick expulsion of migrants encountered by border agents.
Moves to increase capacity and shelter for migrants are indicative of one of the looming challenges for the Biden administration -- more migrants at the border -- but also signal a shift from the Trump administration's posture of turning everyone away."

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashion/article/joe-biden-makeover

https://i.imgur.com/V39NIRD.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0R88hpL.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/D8KQ4Ga.jpg

not good, man
https://i.imgur.com/p20vfbf.jpg

eh, that's just standard issue politicospeak, like those endless kitchen tables they love so much

only one country can win each century, every historian knows that

Canada won last century but the US has a great shot at winning this one

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/wilfrid-laurier-canadas-century-1904

like those endless kitchen tables they love so much

Chuck Schumer and the Smithenbergs

(imo it's good if politicians don't formally message insanely racist and imperalist and incomprehensible nonsense, even if other politicians have done so earlier)

As I was listening to the speech, I also wondered if perhaps Biden views rhetoric like that as a potential path to bipartisanship (or at least greater internal cooperation): identifying a common enemy that the country can unite behind to defeat.

There's a definite rally-the-troops quality to lines like this:

Can our democracy deliver on the most pressing needs of our people? Can our democracy overcome the lies, anger, hate and fears that have pulled us apart?

America’s adversaries – the autocrats of the world – are betting it can’t. They believe we are too full of anger and division and rage. They look at the images of the mob that assaulted this Capitol as proof that the sun is setting on American democracy. They are wrong. And we have to prove them wrong. We have to prove democracy still works. That our government still works – and can deliver for the people.

I don't know if the rhetoric will actually be persuasive, or if it's even a wise long-term play. But it feels like there's a political calculation behind it, at least to some degree.

a potential path to bipartisanship (or at least greater internal cooperation): identifying a common enemy that the country can unite behind to defeat.

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/starship-troopers-1997/Starship-Troopers-image.jpg

watchmen or what have you

Suspicious that Joe Biden might just believes in American imperialism and his thirst for bipartisanship follows from that rather than vice versa.

https://theintercept.com/empire-politician/

this guy thinks so too

oooh. I was wondering what scahill was up to lately.

it's a good resource even if you don't agree with all his framing of Biden's stances

President Biden calls for Congress to pass the Equality Act with a message to trans Americans:

"For all transgender Americans watching at home, especially young people ... I want you to know your president has your back." pic.twitter.com/fQCXKQBWCS

— The Recount (@therecount) April 29, 2021

Lately I just assume that anything posted about Biden to any of these threads is some gotcha moment that makes him look like a clueless buffoon or racist or warmonger or fascist or whatever, so I end up watching or reading it several times, scratching my head, trying to figure out what he did or said wrong. Like seeing a New Yorker cartoon but struggling to get the punchline.

I thought his address dragged towards the end--I cut out at one point--but the first half was good. The one thing I thought he might get grief over was a throwaway aside: he was talking about cars lined up for food baskets and he said something like "and these were nice cars," as if that made the matter more urgent. Wasn't mentioned, though, in anything I've seen or heard.

blinkered Blinken needs to be shot into the sun and fuuuuuck all this posturing re China and po faced handwringing over leftist governments in S America, but I’ll say it: Biden is so far is the best prez of my lifetime. I have no illusions where his loyalties lie, or that he has anything approaching actual principles. but at least he (or tbh his handlers, cry about it) are attempting to respond to the moment in a way that makes some sort of sense. I know I’m gliding past a lot of gross shit re immigration and cop fondling and needlessly cruel healthcare policy and and etc etc, but hey

keep up the pressure imo and never ever stop bullying neolib politicians and their flacks online.

Probably the furthest left on economic policy since LBJ?

He’s gonna buy a military confrontation in the South China Sea with all those trillions

This is like a laser-guided missile at the top 0.1%:

Senior administration officials confirmed that the plan would include an increase in the top income tax rate from 37 per cent to 39.6 per cent for Americans earning more than $400,000, eliminate the preferential tax treatment of capital gains and dividends for those earning more than $1m and scrap provisions allowing people to pass unrealised capital gains to their heirs free of tax.

More like a half-filled water balloon, but I'll take it.

I mean it will be amazing if it passes intact. The Democratic party has rich donors too. But it's definitely bold by Capitol Hill standards.

And on top of their proposed international framework to end corporate tax evasion on a global scale, it's even more impressive.

Late to the party but wanted to point out that the image sic posted upthread

https://i.imgur.com/D8KQ4Ga.jpg

Was (on Reddit) accurately captioned "Joe Biden Fingering A Minor."

One could list the shortcomings of Biden's program—I could do without "beat China"—but these initiatives are all very good. The repudiation of trickle-down is a huge ideological shift. And it's massively popular—instant polling had approval around 80%. Didn't expect this of him.

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) April 29, 2021

RIP Morbs.

Is Biden finally figuring out that the Democratic platform is actually popular?

it is kind of eerie how well biden's platform tracks with general sentiment (relatively left on economic issues, hard right on immigration)

So...you mean populist ethno-fascism?

not quite that far but I've posted that study before about how those positions are (depressingly) the most popular respectively