USA Midterms....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Michelle was a phenomenal First Lady and I think could be an even more positive president than Obama.

I don't really know enough about Melania to be honest.

Neither is ever likely for a variety of reasons which is unfortunate.
 
Michelle keeps getting mentioned but she has said a few times that she has zero interest in running. I don't think Melania has either. I was joking about her but she seems quite sensible by comparison to Donald. I still think Biden will likely quit by April/May, unless he can avoid any more major gaffes. He'll probably do fewer appearances to lower the risk. Trump won't quit, there'll be increasing gaffes and concerns, but it will be too late for another candidate by then.
 

C R

Über Member
Michelle keeps getting mentioned but she has said a few times that she has zero interest in running. I don't think Melania has either. I was joking about her but she seems quite sensible by comparison to Donald. I still think Biden will likely quit by April/May, unless he can avoid any more major gaffes. He'll probably do fewer appearances to lower the risk. Trump won't quit, there'll be increasing gaffes and concerns, but it will be too late for another candidate by then.

Melania can't run as she wasn't born in the US.
 

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
At this point I'd really rather Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were running. Both seem sharper than the two current candidates.
The Democrats are unfortunately in the position of not currently having someone other than Biden who could defeat Trump. And thanks to the hold Trump now has at all levels of the Republican party, neither are they in a position to challenge Trump. Senator Mitch McConnell let that stable door open, when Trump could have been impeached.
Now people like McConnell, who gets publicly humiliated by Trump, are seeing more of the damage he can do. For example Trump is effectively forcing out Rona McDaniel, (she used to be known as Romney, but Trump didn't like her using that name), as chair of the Republican National Committee and nominating his daughter in law for the post. - Someone who has openly declared all money raised by the RNC will go to Trump, even though it is supposed to be for the promotion of the Republican party, coordination of fund raising, etc.
Trump declared for, and went all out for the nomination ages ago, knowing that was the only way he stood any serious chance of keeping his arse out of prison. I believe Biden has said he would not have stood again but for Trump. Biden knows he is the only one who could beat Trump and should he fail, who knows what America will be like for the next decade or so.
If Biden wins this November, Trump should be screwed and I am pretty sure Biden would signal his intention not to run again for the Presidency.
 
This is what I don't understand with American politics. When there is so much at stake why do they persist with this system whereby anybody with enough money can run? Why aren't the parties bringing through candidates, looking 5 or 10 years in advance, instead of grasping at mavericks or resigning themselves to incumbents? Perhaps they are and we just don't hear about it. The large sums involved in making a presidential run probably deter many decent candidates, making politics only viable for the rich.
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
That's not so far removed from what we have in the UK, and most other countries around the world. It's just amplified in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
True but we do seem to have more of a working your way up through the ranks system. It's nuts really that Swartzenegger, Reagan, and Trump, all jumped immediately into high political office. Reagan was a union rep I suppose at least.
 
Had any of them held previous office? California has an economy bigger than most countries. It seems bonkers that you can go from acting to running something that size. At least our system demands some sort of parliamentary experience before you get to be in charge. Doesn't necessarily mean people with no experience are always terrible, or that experienced politicians are any better, but the US system seems so bizarre, from local mayors to presidential runs it just doesn't seem set up to bring out the best.
 

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
This is what I don't understand with American politics. When there is so much at stake why do they persist with this system whereby anybody with enough money can run? Why aren't the parties bringing through candidates, looking 5 or 10 years in advance, instead of grasping at mavericks or resigning themselves to incumbents? Perhaps they are and we just don't hear about it. The large sums involved in making a presidential run probably deter many decent candidates, making politics only viable for the rich.
Probably the same reason proportional representation doesn't look like it will get a foothold in the UK parliament for the foreseeable future. - Turkeys voting for Christmas.
I think Democrats spent years in disarray and somewhat ironically, it is probably Trump who has brought the Democrats (largely) together. Whilst Republicans had the likes of arch conservative Liz Cheney in their ranks as a potential leader, with Trump's malign influence over the party, her vote against Trump in his second impeachment trial and involvement as vice chair of the Jan 6 enquiry, effectively numbered her days in the Capitol.
Less wealthy people may be able to make it, but certainly with the Republicans, unless they can find someone charismatic who large numbers of people would be prepared to back, this would seem unlikely, at least for a while. Trump is bleeding the party dry. In 2023, his political action committees spent >$50m in legal fees for Trump and I would have thought he will be burning money through 2024 at a similar if not accelerated rate.There is an article here which details some of the mind boggling figures.
Plus if, as seems likely, he secures control of the Republican National Committee that will give him access to more money.
Also in some states there is a cash shortage to support candidates. For example in the battle ground state of Michigan, the Republican party started 2023 with almost $2m cash on hand. It ended the year with around $246,000. In Arizona, another battle ground state Republicans are also a bit short of cash. In August/ September last year, the party disclosed cash on hand of circa $15,000. By contrast Democrats disclosed >$3/4m.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Fab Foodie

Fab Foodie

Guru
True but we do seem to have more of a working your way up through the ranks system. It's nuts really that Swartzenegger, Reagan, and Trump, all jumped immediately into high political office. Reagan was a union rep I suppose at least.

Carter was a peanut farmer.
Money talks and in the 'Classless' USA talks loudest....
 
Clinton came from a poor background too. Obama to some extent as well. They do seem to have been the exception in recent times. There's probably only Jay-Z and Taylor Swift who will be able to afford to run by 2028. I could probably get behind that campaign though.
 
Top Bottom