Will Biden be the 2024 Democratic Nominee?
66%
chance
Close date updated to 2024-08-02 12:59 am
Sort by:
Gigacasting avatar
Gigacasting
bought Ṁ35 of YES
BenjaminFallacaro avatar
Benjamin Fallacaro
is predicting YES at 63%

As much as I wish it wasn't the case, Biden, the incumbent, will obviously be the nominee, barring any health crisis, which I find unlikely to happen over the next 2 years.

AlexRockwell avatar
Alex Rockwell
bought Ṁ0 of YES

I'm sure we will get down to a sane probability of like 40% soon. :D

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
bought Ṁ100 of NO

@jack Real money markets are ~50% as well. Strange how much of an outlier Manifold is, and has been for a while.

jack avatar
Jack
bought Ṁ68 of NO

@PhillipConstantine Yep. Lots more forecasts can be found here: https://metaforecast.org/?query=2024+nominee+biden. Polymarket at 50%, Insight (another real-money prediction market) at 40%! Some shockingly large price discrepancies between real-money prediction markets where I wouldn't have expected it.

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
bought Ṁ400 of YES

@jack The real money markets seem to have a Republican lean compared to Manifold, and Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that Biden is a person who should retire (he's senile, he's sick, etc.).

I'd bet money on the real money markets, but I have a strict no-crypto policy. 😄

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 65%

@Gabrielle Yeah that was also my hypothesis for why they were lower. I generally am pretty confident in Metaculus though, so I'm still willing to bet this market down.

And yeah, betting on the real money markets has so many risks (easy to accidentally lose all your crypto, or someone figures out an exploit to steal all your crypto), fees, and low liquidity that make it much harder to correct price discrepancies.

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 66%

@Gabrielle Real money markets are strongly expected to have no bias at all. Even if 90% of the traders were hardcore Fox watchers, their money is just a giant incentive for others to make a bunch of money by correcting the odds. If the bias is anywhere, it would be play money markets. Less incentive to keep ideology out of it, and less incentive for more rational people to correct errors.

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 66%

@PhillipConstantine I think that is true in theory if you make a long list of assumptions. But the longer I've spent on prediction markets, the more I believe that they are definitely not efficient markets. Correcting the prices on prediction markets is nowhere near profitable enough for sophisticated funds to be interested, so it's not done in any systematic way. Otherwise we wouldn't see these significant price discrepancies between different platforms, including even between different real-money prediction markets.

This is a topic I'm currently quite interested in and I've been working on some analysis to try to figure out to why prediction markets are mispriced, like in my election forecast comparison https://firstsigma.substack.com/p/midterm-elections-forecast-comparison-analysis

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 62%

@jack Nice Substack!

I agree, my comment understates the limitations of those markets. Should have said:

Real money markets would be expected to have net-zero political bias over time, IF they had no taxes, fees, or regulations such as spending caps. Given that they have moderate taxes and fees, and low caps, we should expect them to not have overt obvious political bias like we see in normal politics, and to be accurate only to within ~3-10 percentage points.

My point still stands though that more reliable markets put this closer to 50%. So the result of betting NO here is free (expected value) mana

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 65%

@PhillipConstantine Why would you expect no political bias?

Suppose, for ideological reasons, prediction market users are 50% Republicans, 25% independents, 25% Democrats. In a perfectly functioning market, and assuming that Republican and Democrat positions are right with the same frequency and people bet ideologically, the Democrat and independent users make gains until the users, weighted by balance, are equally Republican and Democrat.

But in the prediction markets we have now, that feedback mechanism isn’t working. There is slight movement in that direction, but the fees, taxes, and caps mean that users who are right more often aren’t able to increase their balance that much. Moreover, the caps mean that the markets are not weighted by balance, breaking the mechanism entirely.

Because of this, I’d expect Manifold to be more correct than the money prediction markets. The fees are negligible and there’s no spending caps, so the feedback mechanism works properly. On top of that, I think that Manifold has a generally more capable trader base (which wouldn’t be relevant in a perfectly functioning prediction market, but that doesn’t apply here).

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 65%

It's not just fees, taxes, and regulations though (PredictIt is terrible but Polymarket doesn't have caps and only has 1% fees, so it's actually not bad). There's a bigger fundamental issue: prediction markets weight people's predictions by how much wealth they invest, which for real-money markets is largely determined by their jobs etc and very little by how good they are at predicting. This is one huge advantage a play-money market like Manifold or a non-market like Metaculus can have over real-money prediction markets: they can do a better job of weighting by past prediction track record. Even though users can buy mana, the amount of mana people have on Manifold is much more correlated to prediction track record than the amount of money they have for a real-money prediction market.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
bought Ṁ0 of YES

With all the limit orders volatility has tightened.

But we have also pushed through a lot of the large No limit orders at this point so it looks like this market will get back up to a reasonable probability soon

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 66%

@Chaos Set Yes limit orders and then bait No's into buying is such a predictable winning strategy that I wonder how long it will work :)

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 66%

@Chaos It's not bait, it's people agreeing to make trades at mutually agreeable prices. That's how markets are supposed to work!

Chaos avatar
Chaos
bought Ṁ0 of YES

We are slowly getting back up to a more sane probability.

Notice that this market without Pepe betting has Biden at above 70%

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 62%

@Chaos The current probaiblities (69% for seeking 2nd term, 60% for winning nomination) imply a 87% chance of Biden winning the nomination if he seeks it, which doesn't seem too unreasonable. I don't think we can infer that either market is clearly mispriced.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 61%

@jack Never a sitting president lost nomination :

BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 61%

@MP That is irrelevant. The precedent that matters is Lyndon Johnson. He was overwhelmed by the burden of the job and decided not to seek reelection. It resulted in Nixon because LBJ did it in a sloppy way. Biden can potentially avoid repeating that mistake.

whenhaveiever avatar
Cornelius Grass
is predicting YES at 61%

@MP It has happened, though not in awhile. The last was Chester A. Arthur in 1884, who did not mount much of a campaign due to poor health.

SranPandurevic avatar
Srđan Pandurević
is predicting NO at 67%

@whenhaveiever Seems relevant to the current situation

WOOF avatar
Down bad
bought Ṁ100 of YES

I don’t understand why people wagering yes are complaining so much. Buy the dips.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 58%

@WOOF How do you think I get a dip to happen 😉

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 65%

I think this is the most volatile market in manifold, adjusted for liquidity

Chaos avatar
Chaos
bought Ṁ0 of YES

@MP I've noticed that too. I see you have taken the strategy of buying at 50 and selling at 60 to take advantage of that

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 60%

@BryanCulbertson I don't think this market has any predictive capacity. We are all just playing each other for now. It won't track the real odds of like 95% until we get closer to a payout.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 59%

@BryanCulbertson Quite incredibly. The market is remarkably liquid. In my Twitter market, the odds change bit by bit. Here it is everywhere every day.

MichaelWheatley avatar
Michael Wheatley
is predicting YES at 59%

@BryanCulbertson That only works temporarily, while there are lots of traders with divergent opinions, who haven't been able to fully stock up on all the shares they want, so the price bounces back and forth. Eventually the market settles and the free money dissipates.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 57%

@MichaelWheatley Right now Pepe is propping up No all now their own due to their outsized wealth. The reason I say this isn't that predictive is most of the people in the market think the odds should be higher, but Pepe alone keeps it suppressed.

We aren't really seeing the wisdom of crowds reflected here.

MichaelWheatley avatar
Michael Wheatley
bought Ṁ100 of YES

@BryanCulbertson If that's true, Pepe is handing out free money, so it can't last too long. I'm not confident enough to want a huge position myself.

If you'd been a long-time user I would have offered you a mana loan so you could put your money where your mouth is and profit off the sure-thing mispricing. But you can try asking @BTE, he has a lot which he was looking to lend out.

MP avatar
MP
bought Ṁ0 of YES

I am confident enough to eventually build this one to my top position.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 63%

I just won big on the Oakland mayor election, but I still have small peanuts compared to Pepe's $50k.

It'll be a while before I get paid out on this market so i think I need to place some near term bets so I can take on Pepe here with more mana.

Yev avatar
Yev ✔️
bought Ṁ500 of NO

@BryanCulbertson

Right now Pepe is propping up No all on their own due to their outsized wealth.

Pepe's position is only 2x larger than Nathan Young's:

Chaos avatar
Chaos
bought Ṁ0 of YES

@Yev There are about 330 people who bought Yes on this market and about 150 who bought No. It's not even close which side is preferred.

Yev avatar
Yev ✔️
is predicting NO at 63%

@Chaos Okay, and? This is not a poll.

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 61%

Pepe most likely has lots of funds because they predicted well in the past (they have 29k total profit). Therefore, Manifold is (correctly) assigning Pepe's predictions more weight. This is correct from a Bayesian perspective.

This isn't very different from https://manifold.markets/BoltonBailey/will-democrats-maintain-control-of-8d067eb38c33 where I held by far the largest YES position because I bet heavily towards 538. My prediction got weight proportionate to my past track record/profits, which is generally a good thing for prediction accuracy. It is however also true that the predictions can be very noisy when one person's decisions make a very large difference to the market price. I discussed some of this a lot more here: https://firstsigma.substack.com/p/midterm-elections-forecast-comparison-analysis (see the comparisons of Manifold and Metaculus vs others in particular)

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 62%

I am just analyzing why this market is so far from fundamentals and how it got there.

We basically have a couple people who listen to alt-right news and think Biden is "senile" and those people have more mana here either due to good predictions or because they spent a couple hundred real dollars.

Due to this, it means we can take advantage of the volatility that provides, and then later on gain when they try to cash out after it becomes more clear that Biden is the presumptive nominee.

SamuelRichardson avatar
Samuel Richardson
is predicting YES at 62%

@Chaos if you can figure out how to bet against other alt-right conspiracy theories, please let me know. Theirs (possibly real) money to be had against them!

MichaelWheatley avatar
Michael Wheatley
is predicting YES at 62%

@Chaos There was some discussion of this market on the discord. Manifold is in fact putting a much higher probability on this than other prediction markets like Polymarket or Predictit. So forget about making free mana, you could be making free U.S. Dollars!

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 62%

@MichaelWheatley Both predictit and polymarket are historically worse at predicting politics than just simple polling, right? It isn't legal in the US to gamble with real money or I would also bet there. Thinking Buttigeg and Harris have a higher chance of being nominated than Biden is.....at odds with any political expert analysis.

jack avatar
Jack
is predicting NO at 62%

The explanation for this market being bet heavily down is simple: it's being bet towards polymarket. However, I don't know why polymarket is so low.

@Chaos I don't think it's clear whether prediction markets have a better or worse track record on elections than the polls. See https://electionbettingodds.com/about.html for some claims that the prediction markets did better than polls. Also, polls alone don't make forecasts, you need to do sophisticated aggregation and statistical modeling on top of that, like what 538 does. But 538 certainly isn't the only one, e.g. back on 2016 I remember there were quite a lot of well-respected models, and both 538 and the prediction markets put Trump at about 1/3 chance, while other models put him at like 2%. So the fact that the prediction markets aligned with 538 and not the other models is a signal that they are doing something useful.

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
bought Ṁ50 of NO

It's wild how big of a disagreement there is between this market and the real money market. Polymarket says ~50% chance, and it's a high volume market.

People here seem to be starting with the base rate (correctly), and then failing to consider how different this really is from the norm. Biden himself has expressed uncertainty over wether he will run. The guy is 80! We should be more open to the idea that his age really is a large burden on his chances, not just a Fox talking point.

GaryHRei avatar
Gary H. Rei
is predicting YES at 68%

@PhillipConstantine people here are just dumb

RumHammithy avatar
Rum Ham
is predicting YES at 65%

@PhillipConstantine my money on yes is more of a function of my belief in the other potential candidates. I don't see any of them being strong enough as to overcome bidens incumbents advantage.

GaryHRei avatar

@RumHammithy If you're confident on your prediction You should have put real money on yes in polymarket and make some good money

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 64%

@RumHammithy Election Betting Odds says Newsom is the most electable now, fwiw.

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/ElectabilityDEM.html

RumHammithy avatar
Rum Ham
is predicting YES at 65%

@PhillipConstantine it also currently has kamala over biden. I simply do not believe that, feel free to call me delusional. (ole pete b is based though he's my #1)

Yev avatar
Yev ✔️
is predicting NO at 61%

@PhillipConstantine That's chance of winning if nominated, which is not what this market is about. The correct link is https://www.electionbettingodds.com/DEMPrimary2024.html. It puts Biden above everyone else, but only at 47%.

Gigacasting avatar
Gigacasting
is predicting NO at 65%

The “100.0” and “95%ers” can easily double five to six figure sums on polymarket if they have a point

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 62%

@Gigacasting Biden is not resigning. That it is at 12% shows the demographics of this market is skewed from reality. 😆

I am out of mana or otherwise I would take all of your money 🙂

JackSkellington avatar

This is absolute cope. There's a zero percent chance they do not run Biden again.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 66%

@JackSkellington Biden can be physicallyimpaired with 15% probability. Also, he can decide not to run. I'd put a 83% that he runs.

JackSkellington avatar

@MP He could be dead and they would still consider running him. The chances of him not running I would tie solely to physical injury, which I would put at much lower than 15% in ~1.8 years.

AlexRockwell avatar
Alex Rockwell
bought Ṁ481 of NO

@JackSkellington I think its around 40-50%. I'll bet a lot on no at 66%

BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 71%

The reason for him to run is he will beat Trump. The reason for him not to run, and the greater concern imo, is that Trump is not going to be the nominee. What Biden should do is open up the Democratic primary and invite people to challenge him. That would require starting that process now, because they need to plan things like the debates that as of now aren't happening. It would be in the country's best interests, and that is actually what I think drives Biden in the end.

MP avatar
MP
bought Ṁ0 of YES

@BTE I'd bet you Ṁ 1000 that if the democratic party makes open primaries, Dark Brandon won't be part of

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 60%

@BTE There hasn't been a primary challenger to an incumbent president in over 40 years. Right now Dems are doing better than expected by passing their platform through a 50/50 congress, holding control of the Senate, and almost holding the House.

Right now Dems on a path to easily keep the presidency in 2024. What would they have to gain by risking an easy victory?

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 61%

@BryanCulbertson the problem is that a lot of the success this fall has been related to the Dobbs decision, which probably will have lost even more momentum by 2024 (if the election had been four months ago, the Democrats would probably have kept the house and won another Senate seat or two). It seems more like antipathy for the Republicans than favor towards the Democrats, even though personally I'd say that they've been doing a pretty good job.

Biden has been seen as doing poorly, with a lower approval rating at this point in the term than any president since they've been tracking it. A lot of that has to do with inflation, which should be better by 2024. But we might be in a recession by then as a result, which also would be bad for Biden.

I'm just really not sure that we can infer much about Biden's chance of victory from this year's elections.

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 66%
MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 66%
BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 65%

@Gabrielle Saying the Dobbs decision will lose momentum is similar to saying the Roe v Wade decision and the pro life movement it stirred up would lose momentum. Losing momentum would mean giving up and I don't see that as a possibility.

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 65%

@BTE I'm sure that many people will still care deeply about it in 2024, but the amount that they care about it will be almost certainly lower than the amount that they cared about it on the day of the Dobbs decision. Looking at polls, it's definitely gone down as an issue since then, and unless some major news stories hit (or something happens like Republicans making it a major campaign issue to outlaw it nation wide), then I would expect it to be less impactful than it was in this election cycle.

That's especially true for someone like an 45-year old male swing voter in a purple state, who thinks that it's good for people to be able to get an abortion, but probably only in the first trimester, and it doesn't impact him directly so he doesn't get fired up about it. Those swing voters impact presidential races much more than the people who care strongly about the issue (since they were likely already politically engaged and voting democrat).

Chaos avatar
Chaos
bought Ṁ50 of YES

This market should be at like 95%, but it looks like there are some fox news watchers in the arena

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 59%

@BryanCulbertson Gavin Newsom apparently thinks that it's possible for someone else to be the nominee, and he's not exactly the Fox News type. (I agree it should be pretty high odds though.)

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 59%

@Gabrielle He has another term as governor. He is going to run for president in 2028

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 59%

@BryanCulbertson Ah! If you look at the order book its just gigagasting and pepe with a lot of limit orders that is keep these odds so low. Wish I had the cash to take all of their money.

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 62%

@BryanCulbertson It's not that simple. There is basically no precedent for a sitting president being this old, particularly in the age of social media (high visibility), so the normal pattern of incumbents always winning nomination could be overcome.

Also, the accusation that the "NO"s are Fox News viewers is nonsense. Some Democrat is guaranteed to win the nomination, there is little room for partisanship when this is an ingroup contest.

If anything, this still seems high. Real money markets are giving Biden 50%, and I think that's right.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 67%

@PhillipConstantine It would unprecedented to risk an almost guaranteed 2nd Dem term with nothing to gain.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 60%

@Gabrielle Asking Gavin's opinion on this subject is like asking a hairdresser whether you need a haircut

Gabrielle avatar
Gabrielle
is predicting YES at 61%

@MP But a hairdresser wouldn't suggest a haircut to a bald person. Newsom seems to think that it's worth campaigning for 2024, so he must think there's at least a chance of winning. The chance is probably still low, but I think it would need to be a good deal more than 5% for him to bother.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 66%
EliGaultney avatar
Eli Gaultney
bought Ṁ30 of NO

I just think his health will be too poor to participate in debates. Now...if they take away debates then maaaaybe.

AnthonyCarlino avatar
Anthony Carlino
bought Ṁ10 of YES
goodpurpl avatar
goodpurpl
bought Ṁ25 of YES

SODA!

bingmcdingle avatar
Sir Grambleton III
is predicting YES at 58%

bro literally who tf else

Cutie avatar
dggL
bought Ṁ58 of YES

exactly

AndrewHartman avatar
Andrew Hartman
is predicting YES at 54%

Given that Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee, I suspect any resistance in the DNC to running Biden again will dissolve. "Pressured to retire due to a combination of age and unpopularity" was by far the most likely route for a NO here, and given that Biden performs pretty well against Trump specifically, if badly against replacement republicans, I see no reason they would decide to toss an incumbency advantage and the guy who's already beaten his presumptive opponent once, for an untried candidate.

So, if you're still putting money down on NO, you're leaning hard into "health problems/premature death" and the odds on that aren't great, I think. I'd say this belongs closer to 70%, which is still pretty low for a renomination of a first-term president, but I'll acknowledge he is pretty old and he's gotta make it, eh, like a year and a half till the filing point of no return?

BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 63%

@AndrewHartman Trump couldn't beat someone in a coma right now in a general election. Biden may do well head to head, but as long as they don't nominate Kamala the Dems can't lose to Trump. There has never been a candidate for a major party so completely unable to win new voters than Trump. His popularity among his base doesn't mean shit for the general election. Only people who have never worked in politics think you can benchmark Trump based on historical precedent. Also thinking Biden is going to remain healthy for 6 more years basically ignores his health history, which was not very good the first time he ran for president in 1980. Newsom is obviously the best candidate IMO, it's not even close.

BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 64%

@AndrewHartman And saying Trump is the presumptive nominee ignores so many factors, such as how is he going to fund his campaign when the major donors have already bailed on him? His dedicated media is going out of business. He had basically zero prominent republicans at his announcement. To say he is the presumptive nominee is like saying the GOP doesn't care about winning, when all evidence is that winning is the only thing they care about.

AndrewHartman avatar
Andrew Hartman
is predicting YES at 60%

@BTE Trump is also worse than the replacement ballot, yes. Ironically both Biden and Trump (being united in that characteristic) are best served facing each other. It's a weird time in politics.

And speaking of weird times in politics: as for the funding angle, I think firstly it's less of an issue than advertised, but also, why wouldn't the democratic PACs be willing to bankroll his primary? They spent lavishly on his endorsed candidates. To the extent that money is an issue in campaigning, I see no reason to think he wouldn't have enough to get the message out.

I really cannot stress enough that parties do not necessarily select their best candidates in the sense of the ones most suited to victory in the general election, anyway. I think there are good structural reasons to believe that both Biden and Trump will face each other, and that either party would've been better suited running someone else, particularly if their opponents failed to do so. Such is the nature of the sausage that gets made, and its inevitably unsatisfying rubbery texture.

BTE avatar
BTE
is predicting NO at 60%

@AndrewHartman Great point about Dems funding his campaign. I can see that happening for sure.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 61%

@AndrewHartman I read the NOs here as having bought into the conspiracy theory that Biden is somehow in poor health. There is no political advantage to switching out a successful incumbent while the party is doing well.

AndrewHartman avatar
Andrew Hartman
is predicting YES at 57%

@BryanCulbertson If you actually watch Biden's public appearances, I think the NOs aren't completely off-base on the health angle - the dude is clearly at least a bit senile. However, I think they're mistaken in believing that the majority of voters are watching Biden's random pressers. Partisans are willing to vote for child molesters and dead people, and hell - just this year we have clear evidence that democrats will vote for brain damage over a republican (at least in PA).

Basically, Biden doesn't seem willing to forgo the run when he's lucid, and there doesn't seem to be any notable disadvantage to the establishment for him giving it a go, so I'm not seeing many structural reasons to think he's not going to secure the nom. Perhaps my stance is cynical, but I have yet to find a degree of cynicism regarding politics that isn't eventually proved right by the vote tallies.

Chaos avatar
Chaos
is predicting YES at 60%

@AndrewHartman This is exactly what I mean about how ths market is being propped up with fake news. Biden isn't senile.

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 68%

Real money markets say the odds here are way off. Yes, base rates for presidents in their first term getting nominated again are very high, but Biden's age is a lot worse than most, and in the age of social media, is is also highly visible. 45% sounds right to me. https://polymarket.com/market/will-joe-biden-win-the-us-2024-democratic-presidential-nomination

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 62%

@PhillipConstantine Joe really likes his job, he is objectively able to win Trump and what else would he do? Go to Delaware and wait for death?

Also, it isn't clear who would run and be able to win.

PhillipConstantine avatar
Phillip Constantine
is predicting NO at 67%

@MP Lol, retirement is totally reasonable. There is a high probability he won't live until 2028 anyways. As for the alternative, there are many, including Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg.

As an example of how new media changed long standing patterns, presidents have gotten much taller on average since the dawn of TV. I think something similar will happen with how senile presidents can be with social media.

LiamAndrew avatar
Liam Andrew
is predicting YES at 67%

@PhillipConstantine Democrats need to be pragmatic here, with the Republican party divided by Trump it'd be asking too much to lose the incumbent advantage on a new candidate. Besides, his legislative portfolio speaks for itself.

DavidMathers avatar
David Mathers
is predicting YES at 54%

@PhillipConstantine So, a Vice-President who is widely considered unelectable by the right, too right-wing by the left, and would be seen to be stabbing Biden in the back if he didn't go willingly, a governor who managed to get a major recall effort going against him in one of the most Democratic states in the nation, and the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Not exactly inspiring terror if I'm Biden.

MP avatar
MP
is predicting YES at 60%

@PhillipConstantine Why should he care that he doesn't live until 28? It's a man who loves what he does. It's no burden on him.

The Great FDR didn't and he pursued a fucking 4th term nonetheless.