Tag: political

Well, political primary season is here. Despite what it may seem, I don’t really like putting political posts on the blog, but sometimes I feel like it’s important to put information out there that doesn’t get much attention.

Here’s the bottom line up front: Primaries can be more important than general elections, so it’s very important that you study up on the candidates and participate in the process. It almost seems inevitable that we’re headed for a rematch on the Presidential ballot, but that’s only the most prominent part of a very large picture. It’s also important to consider the Representatives, Senators, and local officials you’re choosing to compete later in this cycle. If a district is solid red or solid blue, the November election is more or less a foregone conclusion. The actual decision point, where voter turnout matters, is going to be the primary election that selects which candidate subsequently appears in the general election. If you’re not voting in the primary, you’re really just letting someone else determine who gets into office. This is especially important for those of you that vote Democrat.

Here’s what I mean. The Democratic Party of today in almost no way resembles what it used to be. The values are different. Now it’s nonsensical and extreme. Don’t feel like you need to completely buy into what they’re putting into their national platform, which seems like it’s a contest to see who can be the craziest. Despite what you feel like you’ve been told, it’s perfectly acceptable to be a Democrat that wants secure borders. Even though the media doesn’t want you to think this way, it’s also totally fine to be a Pro-Life Democrat. Forget what the party platform says; I know there are plenty of Democratic voters out there that think “no, boys should not be able to compete in girls’ events by saying they’re girls.” They’ve become the party of sowing division, rather than unity. How is that good for Americans? What happened to this party? The state we’re in is a result of primaries selecting extremists whose views represent only a small percentage of the actual base. You didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left you during its leftward march. It’s up to you to take back your party.

While obviously there are problems on both sides of the aisle, the problems listed above are Democrat-owned. Republicans are trying to solve them but don’t have enough bipartisan support, either at the national level or at the local level (including school boards, in some cases). I’m not saying you have to vote Republican. Don’t worry, even if we find common ground on these few issues, there’s still plenty to distinguish the two parties!

If you’re not voting in the Democratic primary for candidates that are more centrist and less extremist, you’re probably going to find yourself stuck between voting for a Republican and voting for an extremist Democrat in November. Come November, there are a lot of people that vote only on the basis of whether the candidate has a “(D)” or an “(R)” next to their name and don’t know the actual positions of the candidate, and that’s dangerous.

There’s a lot of posturing politicians have to do with regard to taking hard-line stances against the opposing party when they’re in front of the cameras, and I understand that. Members of all parties are supposed to work together, though. They don’t have to be friends, they just have to work together. Right now the political atmosphere is one of tangible hatred, and that’s not going to get us to a better place than we are right now.

Do your homework. Find the primary candidates in your district’s election that align with your values and vote for them. Take back your party, and let’s hold our elected officials accountable.

Let’s pretend for a little bit that you and I are democratic strategists. Our chief goal is to retain control of the White House in November 2024.

Despite unprecedented legal problems for a presidential candidate, Donald Trump looks like he’s shaping up to once again be the Republican nominee. He’s so dominant in the polls, in fact, that he’s skipping debates and doesn’t appear to be suffering for it.

How confident are you that our horse can beat Trump in a rematch? This early in the election cycle, with polls tied in a statistical dead heat, we’re not confident at all. The incumbent normally has an advantage, and if the two are tied in the polls with more than a year to go before election day, it’s not looking good for Biden.

So what should we do? If you’re a democratic strategist working for Biden, your main focus is to try to fend off a primary challenge. Biden certainly has the advantage in being the nominee this coming cycle, but he has to demonstrate he’s still got enough spring in his step to handle the job. His gaffes have become more prominent in the news lately, and as ambitious potential candidates smell blood in the water, it’s going to get tougher to get the whole party to fall in line. The contenders most likely to pose a legitimate threat to his nomination need to be brought into the campaign or otherwise buy them off to prevent them from causing a problem.

What if, however, you’re not a democratic strategist working for Biden, but rather are focused on keeping the White House under democratic control with or without Biden? The media is starting to turn on Biden, his disapproval rating is at a record high, he’s dealing with a possible impeachment, and his son is nothing but a headache. It’s becoming impossible to conceal his cognitive decline. If we want to win, we’re going to have to get rid of Joe.

So what’s the play? Who do we have on the bench? Kamala’s a non-starter; she’s unelectable. Nancy Pelosi? No, if we want to attack Trump’s age, we can’t have someone older than him. Try Hillary again? I don’t think so. Governor Gavin Newsome of California? Maybe. There are a lot of unknowns there; that’s why we’re doing this Newsome/DeSantis debate soon, as a test run to see what kind of reaction he gets on the national stage. He’s from the far left wing and might be too radical to be a good presidential candidate, but we could be surprised. Biden’s so old and frail that anyone would look energetic by comparison. Let’s use this coming debate as a test to see what kind of traction he can get.

If all else fails, we could pull Michelle Obama off the bench. She had a very high popularity rating, played well on high-profile stages, and doesn’t have a whole lot of negatives. It’d be a dream come true for progressives. The big question is: can she be convinced to run? You have to be both very ambitious and a glutton for punishment if you’ve already spent eight years in the White House and want to go back for more. The White House has a way of making you claustrophobic. She’s never held an elected position before, so she’d have to be paired with a running mate that knows the system and probably one that’s viewed as a bit more centrist. Maybe we can find a democratic governor or senator that fits the bill. If that’s the play to be made, we can’t keep a lid on it for much longer; the deadline to file for the earliest primaries is early in 2024, and we can’t parachute her in until after Joe announces he’s decided not to run, and he still needs some convincing.

To win we’ve got to win over the independents. We won them last time by having a COVID death counter on the news all the time, but that only worked because we were able to make COVID the issue everyone cared about. This time it’s the economy, and that’s a tougher sell. Joe’s been out pushing Bidenomics, but he’s not getting real far with it. People just don’t believe that they’re better off in this economy than they were three or four years ago, and that’s a problem. The southern border is a similar issue; we overplayed the sympathy angle and now even democratic mayors of big cities are tapping out. We can use both of these topics to our advantage to oust Joe; we can hang the economy around his neck, “evolve our thinking” about the immigration issue, and admit that we need a different approach, and that opens the door to bring in someone new.

We also need some new lever issues. We’ve been pushing the insurrection angle pretty hard, but it’s running out of steam. People are starting to realize that even though the insurrection happened in January 2021, we waited two years to pursue any charges, and the timing looks suspicious. The Defund the Police and Black Lives Matter movements have largely stalled, and we need something fresh. Though there’s corruption in both parties, one potential angle is make a big show of rooting out corruption, giving us the moral high ground. We’ll start with Senator Bob Menendez. He’ll put up a fight, but we have enough dirt that we can lean on him hard enough to make him go. By the time he’s gone, more information about Biden’s involvement in his son’s influence-peddling scheme will be public, and we can express regret as we show Joe the door, gravely announcing that there’s no room for corruption in the Oval Office and hoping to turn some independents from Trump in the process using this show of “walking the walk.”

See? It can be kind of fun to take an alternative perspective. I don’t know how much of this is true, but it’s useful to look at things through someone else’s eyes every now and then. If Biden and Trump end up being the two nominees again, I’ve got to think Biden will lose, even with Trump’s legal problems. Joe’s fading in the polls already. That’s why there will likely be efforts in the coming weeks and months to prevent both Trump and Biden from becoming the nominee.

Whoever you vote for in your state’s primary, don’t let someone else tell you how to vote. If you’re all in for Biden or Trump, vote for him. If you desperately want someone…anyone…other than one of those two guys, cast your vote for that person. It’s your vote, not someone else’s. Let your voice be heard.

When you’re a blogger, you’re always at least a little curious about which posts really resonate with readers. Unless someone says something to you, you never really know for sure. You can get insights into things like the number of people viewing the different pages on your blog. That’s about as good a proxy as you’re going to get, because you can use that metric to see what kind of posts are more popular than others. I can’t see things like the names of people that have viewed different pages, but I can see which posts get the most traffic.

It turns out that the post I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the odd politics of our nation (it’s easier for a minor to get a sex change than it is for them to get a tattoo, for example) generated significantly more hits than normal. While I fully intend for this blog’s main purpose to remain focused on pushing Christ-followers to use their lives as a living sacrifice and step into the role God’s designed for them, sometimes I also need to take my own advice and do what I’m good at, even if it’s not directly God-honoring.

Today I’d like to have another look at American politics, starting out with some of the basics and hopefully help translate a little of that into where we are today.

I try to stay away from party names like “Democrat” or “Republican,” and instead use the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” The reason is partly because people don’t often fit cleanly into one camp or the other and people don’t react objectively to labels, but mainly it’s because each party’s views can be so wide-ranging that you could squeeze multiple ideologies into each party. You’ll hear me refer to the political left (liberals/Democrats generally, but Socialists and Communists if you go further and further left) and political right (conservatives/Republicans here, but dictators if you go further right). Both sides seek prosperity or financial security, but they take very different approaches to get there.

Please understand that these are broad generalizations. Of course you can find exceptions to the things I say here, but by and large, these principles hold true. Let’s start with an abridged look at the two groups.

Left: Their view is that the people work for the government, which provides stability, services, financial safety nets, etc. for its citizens (and non-citizens, in our case). Social issues are generally the most important things our country has to figure out. Quality of life is a good thing, but the government doesn’t like when there are large disparities between the “haves” and the “have nots,” so the “haves” should pay higher and higher tax percentages the more money they make. The government will take care of you from cradle to grave in return for your loyalty in paying high taxes. Life is hard, people have extenuating circumstances; they can’t always make the most of their opportunities and they should look to the government as the solution to their problems.

Right: In this group’s view, the government works for the people, providing basic national services (federal highways, FAA and FCC rules, a strong military), but not taking more taxes than necessary and allowing local-level politics to sort out the details. The law of supply and demand plays a big part in our economy. If people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a better or cheaper way to provide it. Individual innovators and service providers in the private sector drive the economy and wealth creation, and the government provides only basic guidelines to make sure those efforts don’t go off the rails (as an example, think about the reasonable rules/precautions the government should pass regarding artificial intelligence right now). Ideally there should be plentiful job opportunities for everyone, and those that work hard are encouraged to go as far as their potential and drive enable them to go.

If you’re a conservative, you kind of have the political deck stacked against you. People in the two camps have very different outlooks, as you might expect. The “best minds” of left-leaning thinkers end up in government. The “best minds” of right-leaning thinkers end up in the private sector. Who, then, on the right, ends up in government? There are some good ones, sure, but often the ones that are really good decide that they can make a more lucrative living doing something other than government service, and they end up leaving public office. I wouldn’t go so far as to say our government’s Democrats are the Varsity team and Republicans are the Junior Varsity team, but it’s tough to come up with a better analogy. As a result, the country has steadily marched left, even though we’re a mostly center-right nation. Even beyond Senators and Congressional Representatives, the bench is much deeper for liberals. When liberals can’t get their legislative agenda passed, faceless regulators and unelected officials use different avenues to advance the goals of hard-left politicians. Businesses that are just trying to make a profit are impacted when their bottom line is affected by regulations that get too complicated to understand. They have to pay for the services of lawyers and compliance officers to make sure they’re doing everything legally, rather than spending that money on enhancing the quality of their product or otherwise investing in their business. (Trump cleared a lot of regulations and the economy leapt forward. Biden reinstituted a lot of them and that’s part of the reason our economic recovery is so slow. Some regulations were good ideas, others were not, but the more regulations you have, the harder it is to run a business.)

Conservatives often have the viewpoint that they shouldn’t interfere in other peoples’ lives because that’s not what they’d want to happen to them. Legislatively, liberals tend to benefit from that outlook because they don’t have the same qualms and conservatives don’t normally fight back until it’s too late. Conservatives figure that as long as politicians in Washington don’t do anything too crazy, it’ll all be fine in the end. Well, then those politicians go and do things conservatives aren’t comfortable with. That gets the conservatives to vote in the next election or two, but eventually they go back to their complacency and the cycle starts again. The result is that the country’s politics have steadily shifted leftward over the last hundred years (examples: Social Security and the New Deal, Medicare and Medicaid, the mandatory health insurance of the Affordable Care Act, today’s practice of using well-qualified mortgage applicants to pay extra fees to help support riskier borrowers, and the functional removal of America’s southern border). The political left “takes new ground” while the best that conservatives hope for is “stopping the liberal agenda.” Conservatives don’t usually take new ground. (Or if they do, it causes face-melting rage fests and riots among the left.)

Our country’s government was set up to have multiple political parties, so I wouldn’t want to see just one be completely dominant, even if it’s the one I tend to side with. It’s a little unfair to refer to the current Democratic Party as the actual Democratic Party. Over the last 20 years or so, the party has shifted far left very quickly, often to the extreme left. The Democratic platform has changed and now embraces extremism in almost every case. (Everyday middle-class Democrats who agree on almost all the Party’s main issues but disagree on one thing, like the issue of abortion, are shouted down and all but kicked out of the Party if they push their views, it seems.) People that have voted Democrat for decades out of principle maybe went along with this leftward migration, but are finding that their party traveled further left than they really agree with. Their options are to not vote, to vote Republican (which some of them will never do just on principle), or to vote for a third party. I’d argue that they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party instead left them. They should get involved earlier, in the primaries, to try to reclaim their party and move it back toward the center, where the two sides can actually get some things done by working together.

There’s so much more to cover, but this is already getting longer than normal. No matter what side you’re on politically, please pray for our nation, that it would turn from evil and toward the Lord. Pray for revival in this land and for God to be glorified.

There’s a whole lot more, but I don’t know if you’d be interested to hear it. Want additional political posts? Want me to stay away from future political posts? Let me know. Leave a comment or use the “contact us” option to share your thoughts.

This is a little bit of a continuation from last week’s post, where we took a look at some presidential candidates for the next election cycle. This time I’m not talking about presidential candidates, but instead will be taking a look at the things the president will need to spend his or her attention and political capital on.

We’re looking at the presidential term of January 2025 to January 2029. As the field of presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle takes shape, consider how these candidates will deal with the following issues. You never know what the most pressing issues will be, but here are some likely scenarios.

On the domestic front:

During that time period our economy will probably still be looking to really hit its stride and get inflation down to pre-pandemic levels. I can’t blame the Fed for raising interest rates, but as we’ve been seeing with a few high-profile bank stories recently, stuff is starting to break. More banks will likely follow. Prior to the bank failures, the Fed recognized that it needed to push rates higher than anticipated to get inflation under control. Now their job gets more complicated because they need to figure out a way to push rates higher without causing large amounts of collateral damage to the economy. That means they move slower, inflation sticks around longer, and it’s generally more painful for the average Jane and Joe.

Politically, we are still a highly polarized nation. There’s supposed to be a healthy amount of political debate, but when you have people getting harmed because of their political views, something has gone horribly wrong. We need someone that can create a degree of unity and foster the idea that it’s okay to agree to disagree and that political opposition is not something that needs to be silenced.

It will get harder and harder to ignore the growing Social Security shortfall. When you’re driving 70 mph on the highway and you see all lanes of traffic stopped up ahead, you can either start slowing down right away and have a gentle adjustment, or you can wait a little longer and then slam on the brakes to avoid catastrophe. The Social Security issue is similar. Something needs to be done. We can either start suggesting uncomfortable things now (shallow benefit cuts, small tax increases, or some combination thereof) or ignore them a bit longer for the sake of winning an election and then be compelled to take drastic action when the situation can no longer be ignored.

The education front has become a hot-button issue recently. Formerly, education meant that students gained proficiency in academic subjects. Many educational institutions seem to have decided that teaching kids is too hard, and instead they’ve taken it upon themselves to prioritize non-education topics above academics, seemingly to minimize the influence of parents. What is the appropriate level of influence parents should have in deciding the curriculum their children are taught? What level of involvement should the school have in steering children toward gender reassignment (and to what degree should the school intentionally keep a student’s parent(s) in the dark about the steps it’s taking to alter the student’s natural body? The education issue was a prominent one in Virginia’s election of Governor Youngkin in 2021.

While domestic politics are what usually help voters decide which candidate gets their vote, the next election will have very important ramifications as we look beyond our country. On the international front:

Hopefully by 2025 Russia will be out of Ukraine. That may be wishful thinking. By that point we may be further entangled. Russia’s downing of an American drone, followed by U.S. politicians calling for retaliation against Russian fighter aircraft illustrate how quickly this whole thing can spiral and suck us into something major. It’s very difficult to foresee how this will end. The Russian psyche is big on not surrendering, so there’s no easy way to convince Russian leaders to simply turn things around and head back home. As things get further bogged down for Russia and Putin runs low on weapons and troops, waving the white flag is not an option for him, and he’ll turn to whatever he has left in his arsenal to try to get his way. Putin will probably try to spin the capture of some small amount of Ukrainian territory into a major victory, but only if he can’t make any substantial headway in achieving his original goals. He’s avoided the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction thus far, but one has to wonder how many conventional weapons he’s got left. Naturally we tend to think things will get better if Putin were somehow thrown out of power. If that were to happen though, who would step into that power void, and would they be even more ruthless than him? They don’t have to be pure as the driven snow, but can/would the powerful people in Moscow agree to put someone more moderate in charge of the government? That’s difficult to believe.

While Russia is prominent today, China looms large during the ’25 to ‘29 timeframe, and will almost definitely be our largest international challenge. China’s backed itself into a corner. Decades of the disastrous one-child policy have led to where China is today: a population with an age demographic that’s about to see sharp increases in average age. China’s rise has been meteoric, but now it’s in a dangerous sprint. Beijing views it as important to assert (and grab) as much power and prestige as possible before it starts losing strength.

It’s very important for China’s ruling party to capture Taiwan and integrate it into the mainland’s system of government. Taiwan currently enjoys a very democratic system of government where it decides its own destiny. When China’s Communists rose up and overthrew the existing government, the deposed government’s leadership fled to an island off the coast of China, to what we know today as Taiwan. Up until the late 1960s/early 70s, China was a reclusive nation and didn’t engage much in the global arena. Richard Nixon helped coax them out of isolation, but one of the conditions was that we recognize only one Chinese Government (it’s called the “One China” policy). We’ve held to that ever since, but China’s moving closer and closer to simply devouring this island, which no Chinese nation, regardless of the style of government, has ever ruled in the past.

As China advances more and more militarily against the backdrop of an aging demographic, I expect it’s developing into a situation where as soon as its leaders feel that victory is possible, there will be no hesitating, but will move immediately and with full commitment to take over the island of Taiwan. The CIA director has stated openly that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has instructed the Chinese military to be ready by 2027 to conduct a successful invasion of Taiwan. Let’s not mince words: whoever is president during that time will be in charge of trying to deter this action, and when that fails, will likely give orders that cost American lives. This conflict could balloon into strikes on American soil, and could easily escalate very far very fast. When it comes to using nuclear weapons to deter enemies, the American President doesn’t necessarily have to be willing to employ them, he or she just needs to make the other guy believe they are. If they’re not convincing in this role, deterrence fails. We’re all probably going to hear a lot more about nuclear weapons in the coming years.

There are a whole bunch of other things that are going to happen. A new cold war and the alliances that come with it as the world chooses sides, a new space race and trips to the moon, the issue of climate change and how new policies related to it affect our lives. While we’re focused on China and Russia, opportunists in other parts of the world are taking advantage of the world’s diverted attention; what will they do?

That’s just the predictable stuff. We’ll also have earthquakes, solar storms, major power outages, hurricanes, airline accidents, mass casualty events, and on and on and on. There is no politician that will be prepared for it or get it all right. As the field of candidates expands and then begins narrowing, focus not on superficial things, but on how those still in the race will handle the issues laid out in this post. It will probably have a profound effect on different aspects of your life.

Well the midterms are four months behind us, and the players in the next presidential election are starting to emerge. It’s time for a little political update.

Let’s rip off the band aid. It’s possible (though I would say there’s a good chance it won’t happen) that we have a rematch of Biden vs. Trump.

On the Republican side, former President Trump looms large in the field of 2024 candidates. He’s held the office before, his vision for America contrasts sharply with the current administration, and he connects with an amazing number of people that don’t normally vote in elections. On the other hand, he brings along a lot of baggage. It probably would have been better for him to win two terms in a row than to serve one term, sit out one term, then return for a second one. One major thing he has going for him is that an awful lot of people think the country’s headed in the wrong direction, and he’s not afraid to say things and address issues that career politicians shy away from.

Right now the only other major Republican candidate that’s declared candidacy is Nikki Haley. She’s served as Governor of South Carolina and as the American ambassador to the UN under Donald Trump. She’s certainly qualified for the job, and is maybe more of a centrist than Mr. Trump, but so far she hasn’t been able to generate a significant amount of enthusiasm.

Former VP Mike Pence has yet to declare his candidacy. Due to differences in opinion since leaving office, it’s not likely that he and Trump would reunite to be on the same ticket. By most accounts Mike Pence is a good man, but something very large and unforeseen would need to happen in order for him to be elected president. A ticket consisting of Haley and Pence would likely be good at effectively governing once in office, but I could see how the pair would also be considered so boring as to be unelectable.

The biggest Republican challenge for Trump right now (and Trump knows it) is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He has not declared his candidacy, but momentum is building for him to do so, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he declared any day now. He’s using his position as governor to notch speaking points for a national run, but he shouldn’t wait much longer to declare. DeSantis has many of the same policy positions as Trump. He tends to be less abrasive, though is still more than willing to push back against those trying to shape the narrative for him. I think the ideal outcome would be to have DeSantis win the nomination, be advised by Trump, and have Haley or Pence run on the ticket with him. (I’ll let you be the judge of how realistic that might be.) This teaming would have a tremendous impact as far as putting the interests of American citizens first.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats have a problem. Not only has the widely held notion of Joe Biden being a centrist president been shattered, he’s also proven to not actually be in charge. Centrists that claim blue collar roots don’t try to ban gas stoves. President Biden goes “off script” quite often, much to the chagrin of those working close to him. On multiple occasions, he’s spoken his mind when he was supposed to just stick to the script. Many of those instances have either given insight into what he’s actually thinking or led to damage control sessions that include the phrase “What the President meant to say was…” This leads to the question “if the president’s speaking his mind and you’re walking back his comments, who’s actually making the decisions on his policy positions?”

I’m guessing it won’t be long before we see a minor civil war among the Democrats. While long-serving Dems value loyalty and will close ranks to protect their candidate, there are plenty of others that are looking at reality and seeing it for what it is. Many people know that President Biden will be a weak candidate, but there are two major problems. Number one, how do you prevent a sitting first-term president from running again? Number two, who do you run in his place?

For the first question, believe it or not, honesty just may be the best policy. “You know what? The Presidency is a demanding job. I was hoping that by this age (80+), I’d be able to enjoy retirement and the fruits of my labor. My health is becoming more and more of a concern for my family. I’m going to pass the torch.” This statement assumes the President chooses not to run. If he really and truly wants to be elected for another four years but the Democratic Party wants to clear the way for someone else, it could get ugly. My guess is that it would somehow involve investigations, legal action, or the threat of such things related either to son Hunter or President Biden’s past business dealings. They could all go away if he steps back from the limelight…

As to the second question, one of the obvious choices is VP Kamala Harris. There are major concerns about her track record, though. There has been little progress in anything she’s been placed in charge of (how’s that border crisis coming along?).

It seems like the Administration has also tried to promote the image of Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg as an up-and-comer, but it’s the job of every administration to insulate the president whenever a crisis pops up, and lately that insulation has come at Secretary Buttigieg’s expense. Recent train derailments in Ohio prompted calls for Biden to visit, but after what seemed an excessive amount of time, Buttigieg made the trip and had to face some of the wrath of affected residents in Trump country.

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s name has also been thrown around, though he’s a left-wing extremist and not likely to be competitive on the national stage. If you need someone to buck the tradition of loyalty to the president, this is one guy that would probably be willing to break norms.

Biden looks to perhaps be the best bad option at this point. Aside from them one could consider candidates with an outside shot: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, billionaire Mark Cuban, former presidential candidates Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Pair one of them with a gimmick act and you could make something out of nothing. What would happen if the election came down to Chuck Schumer and Tom Hanks on the blue side, with Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley on the red side? Tom Hanks would probably bring in a lot of votes that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Unconventional, yes, but it may be worth looking at if you’re a democratic strategist.

We’re still early enough in the election cycle that anything can happen, but I’m guessing that whoever gets sworn in sometime in January of 2025 will be one of the people mentioned in this post. Let’s check back in a couple of years to see how well this post ages.

I know we’ve still got a midterm election to get through this year, but let’s just jump ahead a little bit to the 2024 presidential election.

If you’re a Democratic strategist, you’ve got a dilemma on your hands. From a polling perspective, President Biden is a disaster. Elections aren’t won by Democratic voters or Republican voters; they’re won by independent voters, and those voters have abandoned Biden in droves.

Let’s take a look at the landscape. Less than 25% of those polled earlier this week believe the country is headed in the right direction. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline has nearly doubled since Biden took office, the supply chain problems still aren’t fixed, we’re heading into a recession, the war in Ukraine is having all kinds of ripple effects, the southern border is a hot mess, the Afghanistan withdrawal was completely botched, the prioritization of social issues over actual education in schools means kids are able to do less and less academically, we don’t know if inflation has peaked yet, and a variety of other minor crises are inflicting damage on the president’s credibility. Many in his party think he’s become too radical, and other members of his party think he’s not radical enough. He’s the oldest person to ever hold the office; while there are some people that could do the job at his age, Americans are increasingly realizing that he’s simply not one of those people. Barring a string of miracles in his favor, there are very few scenarios where Joe Biden can win re-election. The last time a Democratic president with inflation numbers like this who were in office during a time with a general sense of national gloom like today’s ran for re-election, he got absolutely stomped by a Republican candidate who offered an optimistic vision for the country.

So, Democratic strategist, what do you do?

Let’s be honest. You can’t begin serious talk of ditching him for another democratic presidential candidate until after the midterms. There are some feelers out there now, and that’s sort of a way of introducing the idea to the public and seeing how the idea is received. Democrats are likely to take a beating in the midterms, and at this point that’s almost a foregone conclusion. Many people are sick and tired of President Biden, but those election results will provide part of the justification for beginning the process of dumping him.

Personally, I think it’s safe to say at this point, just over four months before the election, that the Democrats will lose the House, but I’m not sure by how much. Once that happens open rebellion in the Democratic Party will follow, but I’ll add that the magnitude of the loss will help determine how civil the mutiny is. If the president can be convinced to avoid running again, I honestly think that would be the best thing for the Democrats. If he decides to stick it out, there will be a messy civil war among the Dems, and just trying to fend off a challenge could take so much out of the President that it seriously affects his health. If voters get enough traction to conduct a primary for the Democratic candidate for President, President Biden will lose it and he won’t end up receiving the nomination in ’24. If not, and Biden’s the candidate, he’ll lose in the general election against pretty much anyone.

What about over on the Republican side? I think that’s also lined with pitfalls. The big question mark, of course, is Donald Trump. I’m inclined to think that he’ll announce his intentions soon after the midterm elections. He’s developed a personal following that’s unheard of for Republican politicians, but his support seems to vacillate widely. Some people were so turned off by his style that they voted for Biden in ’20 just so they wouldn’t have to see news coverage of him anymore, but now that they’re living with the fallout of that decision, they may be open to voting for Trump and his policies next time (cheap gas, secure borders, a stable economy, making the lives of Americans better before we make the lives of people in other countries better, etc.). On the other hand, nobody truly knows for sure what kind of “revenge tour” he’d go on if he were sworn in once again. It’s tough to imagine he’d completely ignore the actions of people he perceives as having wronged him.

There are a couple of very capable contenders on the bench. Mike Pence has plenty of experience and has many of the same policy stances as former President Trump, but without the drama. I believe he could beat Biden, but he’s very vanilla and lacks any sort of charisma, which, sad to say, would be enough to allow someone that’s all flash and no substance to beat him in ’28.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is someone to keep an eye on. Lots of Republican politicians (George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, to name a few) felt that if they played nice, the media would respect them and eventually treat them well. That belief is nowhere near reality. Donald Trump figured out “the media’s never going to love me, so why bother playing the game their way?” He did it his way, but he did it so brashly and coarsely that it made some voters ignore the success of his policies and fixate only on the persona. Governor DeSantis is not afraid to push back against the media and some of the loud voices on the left, but he’s able to do it effectively and in a way that’s more palatable to voters. Since he embodies many of the same policy positions that Trump does, this makes him particularly dangerous to Democrats.

The Republican side has a number of additional contenders beyond those early frontrunners (Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo, Tim Scott), though I’d offer that governors tend to make better presidents than senators because they already have experience leading large multi-agency government organizations that have competing interests. Unfortunately these days, you don’t need to have good experience, you just have to be funny or cool on late-night talk shows and you’ll probably win the election.

This raises an obvious question on the Democratic side: if not Biden, who?

The bench is not nearly as deep. The Democratic Party is in sore need of some new blood. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi come to mind, but their age and baggage are also concerns.

Kamala Harris seems to be a VP of more style than substance. President Biden has put her in charge of such things as addressing the border surge, passing the voting rights act, and most recently, the “Ministry of Gender Truth.” Her efforts may be spun as exceptional, but results seem to be lacking.

Pete Buttigieg is an up-and-comer, but he’s still trying to shake off the bad optics of taking nearly two months of paternity leave while the nation floundered with its supply chain crisis…not a good look for the Secretary of Transportation.

Strangely enough, there are some people from outside the political world that could make a strong showing. With the right campaign manager, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson would have a great shot in the general if he could somehow beat everyone else in the primary. Billionaire Mark Cuban could also make a splash, but Washington political animals tend to shrug off the idea of helping a non-politician lead their party. Retired Admiral William McRaven could be a dark horse.

All this to say…the midterm elections are probably going to be the beginning of the end of President Biden. Whatever your political persuasion…do YOU want to be working one of the most demanding jobs in the world when you’re blowing out a birthday cake that has 80 candles on top? I don’t think I’m alone in saying that it would be beneficial for Democrats if the president didn’t run in 2024. Retirement can be a wonderful thing, but it’s way more enjoyable if you get there on your own terms rather than being forced into it.

Lord, we know that nobody ascends to power without your permission. We’ve got a very divided nation right now, and our land is sorely in need of healing. For both the midterms and the next national election after that, please make it clear to us who will either honor You directly or who will establish conditions that allow many others to honor you. I ask in Your name, Amen.