Even WaPo Isn’t Excited About the Dems’ 2024 Prospects – Opinion

It’s a holiday weekend and the news cycle seems to have ratcheted down a notch — whether as a nod to the holiday(s) or from sheer overload/exhaustion is up for debate. But tucked away in the folds of yesterday’s Washington Post (figuratively, of course — I’m viewing the story online) was a rundown of the top Democrat contenders for the presidency in 2024.

The top 10 Democratic presidential candidates for 2024, ranked https://t.co/4DOO3ewBI6

— Post Politics (@postpolitics) April 16, 2022

And I do mean “rundown.” Very little about WaPo’s analysis here is particularly flattering — as to any of the potential candidates, but most notably the current President and Veep.

It begins by acknowledging that Joe Biden is not a credible contender for the 2024 election.

YouGov polled about 2024 Democratic Presidential Primary; it only 21 Percent of Democratic-leaning voters said their choice was the incumbent Democratic president, Joe Biden. That put him barely ahead of the 18 percent who said they weren’t sure whom they supported; Vice President Harris and Bernie Sanders each had 14 percent shares.

This is unusual. We’ve seen some evidence that Democrats aren’t sold on nominating Biden for a second term, including a poll in November showing a majority of Democrats didn’t want him to run again. But lots of Republicans say the same about a repeat run for Donald Trump in 2024 — yet he’s the clear front-runner when you pit him against actual would-be opponents.

After that comes the wrangling over how to best address this awkward situation:

But if Biden is intent on running again, do you allow a competitive primary that could put the choice in voters’ hands — and risk damaging the incumbent president, ala Jimmy Carter vs. Ted Kennedy in 1980? Are you suggesting to Biden it may be better to hand the torch and hoping it succeeds? Do you hope that things will improve with Biden’s presidency?

This article lists the top ten Dem candidates. (Notably absent from the list — not even landing in the “worth mentioning” column: Hillary Clinton.)

I won’t set the entire list out here, but rather, include a few excerpts to illustrate the tone WaPo takes in its analysis:

• California Governor Gavin Newsom — “Newsom notched a big victory in a much-watched recall vote last year, but how he’d wear on voters outside the Golden State is a big question. Newsom practically exudes “West Coast liberal,” even as he’s probably a bit more moderate than some people realize.”
• Senator Cory Booker (NJ) — “His 2020 campaign came nowhere close to capitalizing on the promise of his early political career, but Booker is just 52 and could still have another act on the national stage.”
• Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN) — “Her high-water mark in 2020 was 20 percent in New Hampshire, and she underperformed in Iowa long before Biden really kicked things into gear.”

However, the saddest of the rest are reserved for those who have already been there. Should be the “most likely to’s”…

• Kamala Harris, Vice President (who, by the way, doesn’t even land in the top two) — “We’re dropping Harris down a slot this time. Being vice president is certainly a good launchpad, but it’s not at all clear Harris has put it to good use. Her numbers are similar to Biden’s, and she’s done little to change the perceptions that harmed her 2020 campaign, including on her ability to drive a message.”
• Joe Biden, President (the “Big Guy” himself) — “Having said all of the above, things are often darkest for a president in a midterm election year. Biden faces both inflation and a pandemic. These factors could decrease in the months ahead and beyond the 2022 midterms. The picture might be significantly different.”

Yes. And if the Biden administration hadn’t been floundering so spectacularly in its first 15 months, the picture might be significantly different, too.  This is not exactly an encouraging sign for Harris or Biden, but it does give Dems a chance to be optimistic.

Then again, we’re over two years away from the conventions. It is possible that we could see a completely different political landscape when we reach the conventions. I suspect that the Washington Post staff would be open to this.