What do these ‘reluctant’ Democrats want?

Hey, y’all, I’m back — again. Remember how I told you I’d been on the island of Dominica, and that I would tell you all about it, but didn’t? That’s because I left town again for a few days, to accompany my wife to Memphis for her 50th high school reunion. I try to never miss a chance to go to Memphis. (And yeah, we made it to Pete & Sam’s.)

But before I start sharing travelogues, I thought I’d try to get some basic, everyday posts up. I’ve had several on my mind the last three days, but have been too busy trying to catch up with work (still not there) and emails (about 2,600 waiting, still unread).

So let’s start with this:

If you go to that on Twitter, you’ll see I got some likes, but also some new things to think about from our good friend Phillip Bush. He wrote:

‘Reluctance’ probably isn’t the right word. There’s no single word I can think of for this, but ‘being disheartened that we have no other choice’ probably covers it for many people.

I responded that “disheartened” is hard for me to understand as well. For my part, I’m deeply grateful that Joe is willing to do this. I think he sees, just as I do, that there’s no one else available right now.

But Phillip wasn’t done:

But Joe bears some responsibility for there being “no one else available” on the D side. And, will you still be grateful to Joe when he loses to DeSantis?

I’m not sure how Joe is responsible for the lack of other suitable candidates. That’s a problem that already existed, to which he responded by stepping up himself. (Maybe Phillip can elaborate on that point here.) And I’ll always be grateful to him for stepping forward when his country needed him — whether he succeeds or not.

This leads to my original concern about this “reluctance” I keep hearing about, which I continue to see as irrational and counterproductive.

Irrational because, what is it these people want? Who is it they see out there who could carry the banner better? Who do they think is MORE likely to beat DeSantis, or anyone else? I’m not seeing anybody. And Joe didn’t cause that problem. He stepped forward to offer himself to fill the void.

And it’s counterproductive because if Democrats don’t enthusiastically back Joe — their only option — this nation will plunge back into the steep decline we experienced starting in 2016. And it’s likely to be worse this time around.

So what’s your problem with Joe? His age? Hey, I’d love it if Joe was 20 years younger — he would, too, I’m sure. But that’s not being offered as an option. We’ve got the Joe we’ve got. And I like him…

3 thoughts on “What do these ‘reluctant’ Democrats want?”

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    And of course, BECAUSE I like him, I feel guilty for wanting him to run. He’s earned a rest. Does anybody on the planet deserve to spend all his time with his grandchildren more than Joe does? I don’t think so.

    But I don’t see that I have a choice in the matter, because I see no alternatives.

    I like alternatives. I loved the 2008 election, which I saw as win-win, whether McCain or Obama came out on top. They were both great candidates. McCain would have been a good president, and Obama WAS a good president.

    We haven’t been offered a win-win option since then, and I don’t see one coming up. There’s just Joe, God bless him…

    1. Leon

      Not one incumbent President has been denied re-nomination since the primary system began in earnest in the 20th Century. Only one incumbent President, Franklin Pierce, was denied re-nomination when the national convention delegates were choosing among themselves who should be nominated. So, yes, anyone should be very reluctant to take on an incumbent President in the primaries. If Biden were not running there would be candidates galore.

Comments are closed.