Vivek Ramaswamy is unfit to serve as Governor of Ohio

I hadn’t been expecting to see an election in Ohio take centre stage during an election season again. Over the last ten years, Ohio has gradually drifted away from being a crucial swing state to being more of a Republican state. Despite that, November’s gubernatorial election in Ohio is in the headlines, and not for a good reason.

The race so far has seen a bitter campaign between Republican Vivek Ramaswamy and Democrat Amy Acton. However, that bitterness was topped off this week after Vivek’s campaign published a video featuring Acton’s estranged mother, Donna Arthur, in which she calls her daughter a “liar” who “needs help”, and pleading with people not to vote for her. For context, Amy Acton was sexually abused at the age of 12 by Arthur’s husband, after which point Arthur lost custody of Acton and her brother. Acton has not seen or spoken to her mother – who stood by her husband throughout this period and until he died – since that point, and did not see or speak to her before the video was produced.

For reasons of not wanting to drag the issue out, I will not discuss the finer points of the video here. However, the use of the video has received widespread condemnation from both Democrats and Republicans, including current Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Senator Jon Husted. Despite this condemnation, Vivek not only doubled down on the advert, but his campaign also put another $4 million behind promoting the video in the final days of the campaign.

For many politics watchers, their first introduction to Vivek Ramaswamy would have come in 2023 when, at just 37 years old, Vivek announced his candidacy for President in the 2024 Presidential Election. A billionaire and Cincinnati native who made his fortune in healthcare, technology and asset management, Vivek positioned himself as an unorthodox, government-shrinking, anti-woke outsider who took inspiration from Donald Trump’s campaign tactics and messaging. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have felt uneasy about Vivek since he first entered the political scene ahead of that election; the impression of a young, smarmy tech billionaire with no political background and yet a lot of words to say did not sit right with me. It always felt like he was trying to buy his way in to the presidential race as a complete unknown to fulfil some kind of hobby; after all, Vivek didn’t even vote in Presidential elections between 2008 and 2016. As such, Vivek has always struck me as more like a door-to-door salesman than a political operator or campaigner.

This is not the first time Vivek has tried to leverage an opponent’s family to promote his campaign: during the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary debates, Ramaswamy attempted to deflect a question about his use of TikTok as a campaign tool by referencing Nikki Haley’s daughter’s use of the app, and then saying Haley should “take care of [her] family first” – a comment that earned him loud boos from the audience, as well as a ripping from Chris Christie, who called him an “obnoxious blowhard”. Vivek’s conduct during this campaign has done nothing to assuage me of the view that I first formed of him from that point; publishing a message from a candidate’s estranged mother while using their past trauma to try and discredit them is a disgusting move, but it represents nothing more than a reflection of who Vivek Ramaswamy is as a person as far as I see it.

These characteristics are enough to render Vivek Ramaswamy unsuitable to serve as Governor of Ohio. However, while many will be outraged by this ad, his lack of suitability goes beyond simply his character or his actions during the campaign; aside from everything, he simply lacks the skills needed to succeed as Governor. While Vivek has been vocal about some of the policies he would wish to pursue as governor, most notably eliminating Ohio state income tax and property tax, and while I and many others would love to pay less in tax, I have no confidence that he would be able to deliver on anything once in office.

First of all, Vivek has never held any public office and has no political experience. While this is not necessarily a prerequisite to hold office, following his re-election to the Presidency in 2024, Donald Trump named Ramaswamy as a joint-leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) alongside Elon Musk; however, Vivek stepped back from the position before his role even began after apparently getting into disagreements with some of Trump’s advisers, particularly with regards to his views on American culture. This is an indication that Vivek is unable to work with others, whether on his own team or on opposing teams. Similarly, it is well-known that Vivek relocated his wealth management company from Columbus to Dallas, Texas; so much for keeping jobs in Ohio. If Vivek bailed on his role at DOGE, and then bailed on Ohio when he moved his business, how can we be confident that he will be committed to working in Ohio’s best interests, day in, day out?

The publication of the video featuring Amy Acton’s estranged mother is simply the latest item on a list of reasons why Vivek Ramaswamy is not fit to serve as Ohio’s governor; aside from his use of these tactics, Ramaswamy is a candidate who cares more about being provocative and divisive than working for Ohio, even to the point of doubling down in the face of criticism and outcry. Even without taking his character into consideration, Vivek has no leadership or executive qualities which would endear him to Ohio’s highest office. He isn’t a leader; he’s simply someone who talks a lot, can’t work with others and makes decisions based on self-interest. When he came close to his first government role, he balked. He wouldn’t even keep his business in Ohio. A Ramaswamy administration would be one of similar bluster and inactivity – to the detriment of Ohioans who will no doubt still be paying income and property taxes four years from now. However, with most polling agencies now rating the race as either a tossup or being slightly favourable to Acton, Vivek’s campaign resorting to using a video like this seems like the final throw of a knife by a desperate man.

Ohio has a history of electing individuals with extensive experience to office, and voters in Ohio should seriously ask themselves if Vivek Ramaswamy is the right candidate to be trusted with the state’s wellbeing. Ohio’s next governor needs to be someone with a positive vision who can get on with the job and unite Ohioans, and keep business in the state moving. Vivek is not capable of being that person.

“Is it the fourth?” The deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, 4th July 1826

Today is the 250th anniversary of the United States of America’s independence; on 4th July 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration in Independence, which announced the thirteen colonies’ independence from King George III. The writing of the Declaration of Independence was largely tasked to Thomas Jefferson, although a Committee of Five made up of Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston presented it to the Continental Congress.

For their role in establishing an independent United States, Adams and Jefferson – along with Franklin and other members of the Continental Congress – are celebrated today as Founding Fathers of the United States. Adams and Jefferson would both go on to serve as Vice President (with Jefferson serving as Adams’s Vice President), and then President of the United States; Adams would serve a single term from 1797 to 1801, while Jefferson would serve two terms from 1801 to 1809. However, the story of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson is not just one of the ideals that shaped the creation of America, a bitter political rivalry and a deep friendship; their story includes one of the more interesting coincidences in American history.

Two hundred years ago today, on 4th July 1826 – which was the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died. On a day where bells were rung and cannons were fired across the then-fledgling United States to celebrate their fiftieth anniversary, by sheer coincidence, both men passed away on the same day, just a few hours and hundreds of miles apart from each other.

Jefferson was the first to die, passing away at his Monticello home in Virginia. Jefferson died at around 12:30pm at the age of 83, having suffered from kidney failure and blood poisoning. The day before, on 3rd July, Jefferson asked of physician Robley Dunglison who was attending the former President, “Is it the fourth?”, to which Dunglison responded “It soon will be”. Jefferson’s question to Dunglison is often incorrectly thought to have been his last words; however, Jefferson’s grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, stated that his grandfather would that evening protest a dose of opiate Dunglison tried to offer him, saying “No, doctor, nothing more!”. Randolph also suggested that Jefferson’s final remark was made to a servant, but those words – if any – were never recorded.

Five hundred miles to the northeast of Monticello, John Adams was at his Peacefield home in Quincy, Massachusetts. Adams, who was 90 years old and who exchanged letters with Jefferson until the end of their lives, was suffering from heart failure and not aware of his friend’s demise earlier that day. At around 6pm, Adams died, with the news reaching nearby Boston later that evening. Within a few days, newspapers announced the death of the former President; reports stated that, like Jefferson, Adams also made remarks about the day being the Fourth of July, before reportedly saying “Jefferson still lives”, unaware that his dear friend and former rival had passed away hours before. A few days later, word came from Virginia that Jefferson had also passed away. Jefferson was buried in the grounds of his Monticello home, while Adams was laid to rest at the United First Parish Church in Quincy, alongside his wife, Abigail, who passed away in 1818.

So therein is the fascinating coincidence of the deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, just hours apart from each other on the same day. Both men were of advanced age at the time of their death; Adams would hold the title of longest-lived American President until the death of Ronald Reagan in 2003. To add to this coincidence, the President at the time of Adams and Jefferson’s deaths was Adams’s son, John Quincy Adams, who referred to their deaths on the same day as being “visible and palpable remarks of Divine Favor.”[1] These comments would be testimony to the decades of mutual work, rivalry and friendship between Jefferson and Adams.

The ideals and vision of the Founding Fathers, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson – along with their predecessor and fellow founding father, George Washington – are central to the American identity even 250 years later. This is probably why we find stories such as this – Adams and Jefferson’s coincidental deaths on the same day, hundreds of miles apart from each other on the United States’s fiftieth birthday, along with their concern and awareness of the occasion even until the hour of their death – so fascinating. However, the coincidences in this story did not stop with the deaths of Jefferson and Adams; to add to this coincidence, the fifth President, James Monroe, would also pass away exactly five years later on the 4th July 1831.

Happy Fourth of July!

---

[1] Meacham, Jon, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, 2012, New York: Random House, p496

“The Regulars are coming out!” The true story of Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride

This weekend sees the 250th anniversary of one of the most well-known and celebrated stories from America’s history. It was on the night of the 18th April 1775 that Paul Revere made his famous Midnight Ride. The popular story is that Revere, looking to spread the warning to the local militia that British troops were attempting to land in Boston to confiscate weapons belonging to the colonials, rode that night through the Massachusetts countryside, shouting “the British are coming!” to alert the locals to prepare for their arrival.

Paul Revere’s story has become well-known and oft-told as an act of patriotism and bravery which served as an introduction to the Revolutionary War. His legendary status was further cemented in folklore through Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 1863 poem, Paul Revere’s Ride. However, while large parts of the story are true, some of the more enduring elements are not. In this post I shall look at the true story, and some of the myths that arose from it.

So who exactly was Paul Revere? Paul Revere was born in Boston on 1st January 1734 to a French father and a British mother. Revere worked with his father as a silversmith, locksmith and engraver, but showed a rebellious streak from a young age, favouring the Church of England over his father’s puritanism, and engaging with the local political sphere in Boston. Revere also served in the Provincial Army during the French and Indian War, and following the war would involve himself with the Boston Caucus, a grassroots political organisation which was heavily involved in the Boston Tea Party of 1773. In May 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act which effectively increased the powers of the royally-appointed Governor of Massachusetts; after this, Revere became more active in local resistance groups with the aim of monitoring the movement of soldiers. At the time of Revere’s famous Midnight Ride, he was working as a courier which saw him travel between a number of provincial cities, including Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

By April 1775, discontent had been growing in America over the King’s attempts to exert greater control over the colonies. The Continental Congress and local authorities had been stockpiling arms, should any conflict with the British arise. In order to prevent potential uprisings, the British soldiers had been given orders to seize any arms held in local armories, and to arrest rebellion leaders such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. However General Thomas Gage, commander of the British troops in Boston, feared that such arrests could themselves spark disorder, and so Gage decided to only seize the arms.

The story of Revere’s famous Midnight Ride goes that, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War, colonialists in Boston were expecting British troops to land and confiscate any arms they had, so as to suppress any attempt at rebellion. The troops were expected to head for Concord, where the majority of the arms were stored. Supporters of the rebellion would light one lantern on the tower of Boston’s North End Church if the British were arriving by land, and two if they were to arrive by crossing the Charles River (the phrase “one if by land; two if by sea” was later coined by Longfellow in his poem). This warning would serve as instruction for Revere to alert the local rebels to prepare and arm themselves. Upon receiving the warning, Revere crossed Boston Harbour to Charlestown, and from there being lent a horse, rode on to Concord and Lexington, calling out along the way that “the British are coming”, and warning the Lexington minutemen to defend themselves. During the ride, Revere rallied other figures who would become associated with the revolutionary movement, including John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Upon the arrival of the British troops in Lexington the following morning, the minutemen – the local militia who were prepared to answer the call at a minute’s notice – had rallied to defend the Concord armory; the subsequent Battle of Lexington and Concord marked the start of the Revolutionary War.

However, as with any enduring legend, there are elements of this story which aren’t completely true. Most notable among these is Revere’s cry of “the British are coming”, a phrase that has since entered popular usage. However, Revere would never have said “the British are coming”; this phrase would not be attributed to him until many years later. As it happens Revere, along with many of the residents of Massachusetts and the other colonies, would have considered himself British, and so would not have warned people about the impending arrival of “the British”. In fact, according to David Hackett Fisher, New Englanders at the time would have more likely used terms such as “Regulars”, “Redcoats”, “the King’s men”, or possibly “Ministerial Troops”. Hatchett offers a suggestion as to the origin of the famous phrase: upon arriving in Lexington, Revere approached the town’s parsonage, where the Reverend Jonas Clarke resided. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, who had both been attending a dinner party with Clarke, were asleep inside the house, while outside, Sergeant William Monroe was keeping watch. Upon Revere’s arrival at the parsonage at around midnight, Sergeant Monroe admonished Revere for making too much noise; Revere responded: “You’ll have noise enough before too long; the Regulars are coming out!”[1]

Furthermore – and in any case – with the increased number of military patrols throughout the Massachusetts countryside, Revere would likely not have been able to shout anything at all for risk of attracting attention to himself. Indeed, by his own admission, Revere encountered a number of British military officers whilst on his ride, and would have been captured shortly after leaving Charlestown had he not taken swift and evasive action to throw off his pursuers. While history offers us an image of Paul Revere galloping through the streets calling out to inspire fellow patriots, Revere would have most likely (and more quietly) gone house-to-house to those he knew were involved in resistance efforts, knocking on doors or tapping on windows, rather than calling out in the street.

While Revere was successful in alerting Adams and Hancock in Lexington, he never actually reached his final destination of Concord; he was captured by the Regulars at around 1 o’clock that morning (much earlier than Longfellow’s poem suggests), being questioned for an hour before he was released. Revere’s horse was confiscated and he returned to Lexington on foot. Also, while he remains the celebrated rider to this day, it is also worth noting that Revere was not the only rider to ride out with the warning that night: at least a dozen riders carried the same warning, including Samuel Prescott and William Dawes who – unlike Revere – successfully reached Concord, along with others, both men and women, whose names have been lost to history.

However, all was not lost, as enough minutemen had been alerted to defend the armory the following morning. That day – April 19th, 1775 – saw the Battle of Lexington and Concord take place, which would see the first shots fired which would mark the start of the Revolutionary War.

So as with legends and folklore stories, some details get embellished. The story of Paul Revere’s midnight ride is no different. However, the truth is that, without the efforts of Revere and the other riders, the colonialists may not have been as prepared for the arrival of the Regulars, and may have had their arms confiscated, as had been the Regulars’ intention. The Battle of Lexington and Concord may not have happened, and the American story may have been very different. After the American independence was won, Revere returned to silversmithing, living in Boston until his death in 1818 at the age of 83.

In any case, regardless of the how much of the legend has been embellished for storytelling effect, the story of Paul Revere serves as a reminder of how the United States of America was born. Paul Revere was not a powerful man; he was just one of the many ordinary folk – farmers, craftsmen, tradespeople, shopkeepers – who answered the call to fight for America’s freedom. It was those ordinary folk whose American spirit and efforts to stand up to authoritarian rule and suppression set the stage for the birth of the United States. One thing that fascinates me the most about the history of the United States is its origin story: the people, the ideas, the dreams and the words that founded this country. And regardless of whether or not he shouted “the British are coming”, that story would not have happened without people like Paul Revere.

---

[1] Hackett Fisher, David; Paul Revere’s Ride, 1995: Oxford University Press

Can Donald Trump run for a third term? Here’s what the Twenty-Second Amendment says

Over the last few days, there has been some prominent discussion over whether, and how, Donald Trump could serve a third term as President of the United States. As Trump is currently serving his second term, he is constitutionally ineligible to seek a third term in 2028. For his part, Trump has said that he is “not joking” about finding a way of serving a third term in office.

While some Republicans insist Trump isn’t serious, some critics state that there is a potentially dangerous possibility he will seriously attempt this, and others suggest this is just a distraction from other issues. Serious or not, however, some of Trump’s supporters are actively promoting the idea. In January, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Twenty-Second Amendment to allow a President to serve a third term.

As it stands, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a President from being elected to more than two terms in office. Section 1 of the Twenty-Second Amendment reads:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

So the Constitution is quite clear: a President cannot be elected to more than two terms in office. Since the Amendment was ratified, only one President, Lyndon B. Johnson, was eligible to run for effectively a third term in 1968, as he’d served less than two years of John F. Kennedy’s term; however, this did not come to pass as Johnson ultimately withdrew from the race. Prior to the ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment, it was only by convention – a convention started by George Washington himself – that Presidents would only serve two terms in office. The only President to break that convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to four consecutive terms as President between 1932 and 1944, dying three months into his fourth term in 1945. Before that, Ulysses S. Grant ran for a third, non-consecutive term in 1880, but did not receive the Republican nomination.

In order for Donald Trump to run for a third term, ultimately the Twenty-Second Amendment would itself need to be amended, which is what Ogles’s Joint Resolution effectively aims to do. The Congressman’s Joint Resolution proposal reads “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms“. The isn’t the first time this particular suggestion has arisen: back in 2000, as he was preparing to leave office, Bill Clinton suggested the idea that Presidents who serve two consecutive terms could return for a third, non-consecutive term, citing longer life expectancies.

However, changing an Amendment to the Constitution is not an easy process: in order to amend the Constitution, a proposal must receive a two-thirds majority from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, after which it gets sent to the individual states for ratification. Only once three-fourths of states (or 38 out of the 50 states) ratify the amendment does the amendment pass, and it gets added to the Constitution. It is difficult, therefore, to see 38 states agreeing to ratify such a proposal in favour of the President. The process would not be quick either: indeed, it took four years after its submission to the states in March 1947 for the Twenty-Second Amendment to get ratification from enough states; Minnesota pushed the Amendment over the line on 27th February 1951. Therefore there is no guarantee that a hypothetical amendment would be passed before Trump’s second term ends.

But are there any methods by which Trump could serve a third term while bypassing the Twenty-Second Amendment? One possible avenue – posed hypothetically to the President by NBC’s Kristen Welker – was if Vice President JD Vance ran for President in 2028 with Donald Trump as his running mate; Vance would in this scenario resign, allowing Vice President Trump to once again take over as President. While the Twenty-Second Amendment limits the number of times a President can be elected, there is no such restriction on a Vice President. In any case, Trump responded that, while this would be one method, “there are others too”, although he refused to elaborate on what, if any, other methods there were.

Another potential – yet hypothetical – scenario could be if Trump resigned (or was impeached) within the first two years of his term, he could potentially argue that he had served less than two years of a term, and so could legally seek a third full term as permitted by the Amendment; however, I cannot see Trump voluntarily resigning, first of all, and secondly, the Amendment states that a President cannot be elected to more than two terms; this method would still see Trump violating the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Ultimately, it is highly unlikely that there is a realistic avenue to a third term for Donald Trump, barring a lengthy constitutional change. But what’s this really about? No other President in recent years has had a serious movement seeking to allow him to serve a third term. Congressman Ogles was fairly clear that his motivation is to allow Trump specifically the opportunity of another term, rather than to provide clarity about the Twenty-Second Amendment: “[President Trump] has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal…It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration”, Ogles has said on his website.

How serious Donald Trump is about running for a third term, and how far he is willing to take his efforts, I am not certain. His musings on running for a third term could simply be bluster, an attempt to rile up his opponents, or simply misdirection. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt played down the seriousness of Trump’s attempt to seek a third term. In any case, it amazes me that we are even having this conversation at all; even if it not all serious, the fact that think tanks exist to promote – and elected representatives are supporting – methods for Trump to seek a third term should give us cause for disquiet. I feel these efforts – even if they are not intended to achieve anything – suggest that this section of Trump’s support base holds him in greater reverence than America’s sacred civic systems.

It is very unlikely that, even if pursued, any Constitutional Amendment would be passed in time to benefit Donald Trump at the end of his term. However, elected officials and other organisations promoting or suggesting publicly that Trump could seek a third term offers nothing constructive, and only serves to weaken and damage confidence in the democratic system. As it stands now, in January 2029 Trump will leave office, having served the maximum number of terms he is allowed. With a slew of tariffs now coming into effect, it would be better to focus on what the Trump Administration plans to do in that time, rather than chasing hypothetical – and unconstitutional – scenarios.

Bishop Budde’s plea to Donald Trump should be an example for all of us

On Friday 19th November 2016, Vice President-elect Mike Pence attended a Broadway production of Hamilton. At the end of the show, Brandon Dixon, who was playing Aaron Burr in the production, addressed Pence directly, thanking him for attending the show and saying “we are…alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights”, adding “We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us”. Pence responded afterwards saying that he had heard the cast’s message and was not offended, and even reminded his children whom he was with that the message was an example of free speech. However, Donald Trump, who was President-elect at the time, reacted by attacking the cast and the show for their “harassment” of Pence, demanding that they apologise.

Fast forward to the present day where, the day after his second inauguration, Donald Trump attended an inauguration prayer service at Washington National Cathedral. During her sermon, the Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, made a direct plea to the President, asking him among other things to “have mercy…on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. And that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here”. Her plea referred to some of Trump’s early executive orders, including suspending America’s refugee resettlement program, even for those whose applications had been approved, as well as his commitment to crack down generally on illegal immigration.

In contrast to Mike Pence, who reacted to the message directed at him with dignity and generosity, Trump reacted angrily to the plea; in a TruthSocial post following the service, Trump demanded Bishop Budde apologise, calling her a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater” who is “not very good at her job” and that she was “nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart”. Georgia Representative Mike Collins came to Trump’s defence, saying Bishop Budde “should be added to the deportation list“. While I would like to think that a President so assured of his ability as Donald Trump would not be so easily upset by such remarks, the fact is that Bishop Budde has nothing to apologise for. Far from it in fact; she was simply doing what her faith calls her to do.

Every day across America, churches and other faith groups will pray for the President as well as other civic leaders and representatives, asking that they lead with wisdom and courage. Elsewhere in the world, people in other countries will do the same for their respective leaders every day; people will pray these things no matter who the President is or what party they represent. During his inauguration speech the previous day, Trump, who does not profess any serious faith himself, said that he “was saved by God to make America great again”. Bishop Budde was simply asking Trump to make good use of that, saying “as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now”.

Contrary to what Trump – and many Christians, in all honesty – believe, asking a person in authority to be merciful and compassionate is not a political statement. Most people who know me will know that my political leanings are hardly left-wing. And while Bishop Budde may not share my leanings (I’ve never met or had a conversation with her), the Bishop was not, in fact, demanding any policy shift from the President, nor was she actively demanding that he change any of his plans; she was simply asking him to remember with mercy and compassion those who have fears and concerns over what the next four years might mean for them and their loved ones. Ultimately, no matter who you voted for or where you lean politically, and whether or not you feel that Trump’s crackdown in illegal immigration or his other executive orders are necessary, the truth is that there will be people – human beings, children of God – who will be impacted by his policies and who will be concerned for their families. No matter who the President is, there will be people who will be impacted by the actions of their administration; this is simply what the Bishop was drawing attention to. While her plea to Trump may have been more pointed than it might have been for someone else, all that Bishop Budde was doing was what her faith demanded of her, and nothing less: speaking the truth to power.

Those of the Christian faith such as myself are called to a faith of service and ministry to others, and sometimes speaking out, even when it may be difficult or unpopular to do so, can be an act of service. You do not have to subscribe to a certain political viewpoint – Democrat or Republican; liberal, conservative, progressive, socialist or libertarian – to recognise the value of each person and the need to treat them with mercy and compassion, no matter what difficult decisions a government has to make. It is at the very nature of the teachings of the Christian faith to look beyond labels, leanings and identities, and to treat everyone with the kindness and love the God holds for them all. Bishop Budde’s plea was that Donald Trump – who is not a Christian himself – will remember this as he gets back to work over the next four years. Bishop Budde has said she will continue to pray for the President as he does this.

And while that is going on, may we as individuals keep to heart the most basic message that Jesus taught us: to love one another. And may we simply seek to do what the Book of Micah instructs us: to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.

A reflection: evaluating Joe Biden’s performance as President

On Monday, Joe Biden will leave the White House as his term as President of the United States comes to an end. Biden will leave office as the first President since Lyndon B. Johnson to decline to seek re-election to a second whole term, and will hand the Presidency back to Donald Trump, whom he defeated four years earlier in the 2020 Presidential Election.

Biden’s term certainly wasn’t the easiest (to the extent that presidencies are ever easy): ever since he announced his candidacy for office, concerns were raised about his age and mental capacity by figures from both parties; this would of course go on to be a defining issue in his Presidency. Indeed, when Biden was first elected to the Presidency four years ago, he was, at age 78, the oldest President elected to his first term. However, he was quite possibly the most experienced man to enter office: after holding local offices in the state of Delaware, Biden was elected to the US Senate at just 30 years old. Biden served 36 years in the chamber before becoming Vice President in 2008. Four years after leaving that position, Biden ran for – and was elected – President in 2020.

Biden took office against a difficult political backdrop that few peacetime Presidents have had: the world was in the midst of the COVID pandemic, the resulting pricing and supply chain issues were making lives more difficult, the country had been rocked by the civil rights movement, and Democrats and Republicans seemed more divided than ever. If Biden was to have any success as President, his first challenge would be to try and break through all of this. However, Biden also spent his term in office fighting back against questions about his age and mental ability, which had hampered him since before he had even been elected.

So what were some of Biden’s successes? I would say one of his early successes was the passing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was a massive bipartisan effort between the President and congressional leaders of both parties. Biden also has a lot of numbers going in his favour from his term in office: when it comes to the economy, 15.7 million jobs were added to the US economy, and unemployment fell, getting as low as 3.4% in early 2023. Elsewhere, the number of uninsured Americans fell by 2.1% to 7.6%, and the price of insulin for patients on Medicare was capped at $35 a year as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. And in the final days of his Presidency, a ceasefire deal was reached in Israel and Gaza, using framework Biden set out. While both he and Trump claim credit for the ceasefire agreement being reached, it still happened on Biden’s watch.

However, Biden, like any President, certainly made his share of mistakes. One of his first miscalculations came during his first year in office: the disastrous withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Donald Trump had previously expressed a wish to bring troops home, and he set the wheels in motion for this during his presidency. Biden simply picked up where Trump left off, however Biden chose to ignore advice from his generals who had recommended having some residual US presence in Afghanistan. After missing his original withdrawal deadline of May1, 2021, the withdrawal of US troops became rushed, leading to a vacuum of instability in Afghanistan which allowed the Taliban to reclaim power in the country. While several presidents bear some responsibility for the war in Afghanistan, and while the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan would likely have been difficult no matter who it happened under, the fact remains that by chose to go against his generals’ advice, the withdrawal under Biden was chaotic than it needed to be.

Furthermore, during his time in office, inflation and prices remained high despite decreasing unemployment, with consumer prices up almost 20% and gas prices up 33% compared to when Biden took office. These are figures that normal Americans will encounter every day, and even though it is true that no President has full control over consumer prices – and while Trump will likely inherit the same problems – Biden suffered as a result of this. Elsewhere, Biden’s administration earned criticism for its handling of the crisis at the US’s southern border; while apprehensions along the southern border increased during the final year of Biden’s administration, Democrats were seen as inactive on the issue or even ignoring it entirely. These issues ultimately helped Trump return to office, with 93% of Trump voters in 2024 highlighting the economy and 86% highlighting immigration as top priorities.

I will mention one final decision Biden made which, while I don’t feel this will go down as a defining mistake of his presidency, I feel is worth including: in December, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, who had been convicted of tax and gun offences, saying that “raw politics has infected [the] process and it led to a miscarriage of justice”, going against a promise he repeatedly made that he would not do so. I partly agree with Biden’s assessment, in that – as with Donald Trump’s hush money trial and classified documents case – I do believe that Hunter Biden’s trial was politically motivated to a degree. While any father would want to defend their son, especially considering Hunter’s string of personal problems, Biden’s decision to pardon Hunter still drew criticism.

However, no matter what Biden’s successes or failures were, one of his biggest struggles was fighting back at questions over his age and mental ability – something which became a defining issue of his Presidency. While there were genuine questions about Biden’s age which needed discussing, particularly following his calamitous debate performance against Trump last year, there is no doubt that the issue of his age was weaponised against him, particularly by those who would not hold Trump – who is now the same age that Biden was at the start of his term – to the same standard. While I believe Trump would have won re-election last year no matter who the Democratic nominee was, and while I do think that Biden possibly should not have run for re-election in the first place, there is no question in my mind that concerns about Biden’s age and mental state were employed primarily as an attempt to discredit him.

Having considered these achievements and fallbacks of his four years in office, how did Joe Biden do as President? My early assessment is that Biden’s performance as President is mixed, as would be the case with many presidents; however he deserves credit for his ability to keep America moving during a difficult period. While it is difficult to really gauge a president’s record before he’s even left the White House, I do believe that history will remember Biden’s presidency more kindly in years to come. I feel that, given what he was up against, Biden did the best job he could, and made a considerable effort to break through partisanship in Washington. Despite mixed results on the economy and inflation, Biden has had a number of successes, especially when it comes to domestic issues. Many of the issues he faced – particularly economic challenges following the COVID pandemic – would have been no different had any other President in office, and I do feel that Biden addressed them as best as he could. He deserves credit for his bipartisan work and his efforts to rebuild America’s economy after the pandemic.

If nothing else, the end of Joe Biden’s presidency draws the career of a man who has been in public service since his 20s to a close. That alone has to be worth something.

Trump vs Harris: my projection for the 2024 Presidential Election

Today is the eve of the 2024 United States Presidential Election. Tomorrow evening, the results from the election will start to come in, and we will see if Vice President Kamala Harris will take over from Joe Biden to become America’s first woman President, or if former President Donald Trump can win a second and final term in office, becoming only the second President in American history to serve two non-consecutive terms.

Over the last few weeks, early votes and mail-in ballots have already been cast in states across America for both candidates, as well as in the Congressional elections, as well as gubernatorial elections and all manner of state and local elections taking place tomorrow. The Harris campaign is touting the Biden administration’s record – in which she served as Vice President – as well as the protection of liberties which Trump would threaten in an increasingly unstable world. Meanwhile, Trump – who continues to assert that voter fraud cost him the 2020 Presidential Election – is focusing on inflation and the cost of living hitting ordinary Americans and the Biden administration’s mismanagement of the southern border crisis, as well as returning focus to America at the possible expense of Ukraine and other issues abroad.

All of those issues, discussions, conflict and debate brings us to tomorrow’s Presidential election. In this post, I’m going to share my final projection for what I think the election result will look like once all the votes are counted.

The first thing I want to talk about though: that Seltzer poll from Iowa. If you didn’t see it, a couple of days ago a poll by Ann Seltzer for the Des Moines Register gave Harris a three-point lead over Trump in Iowa of 47% to 44%. This has raised a lot of eyebrows as Iowa is a state that has been swinging more to the Republicans in recent years: aside from having backed Trump in both 2016 and 2020, the state’s entire congressional delegation is Republican. That said, however, three of Iowa’s four Congressional districts were flipped from the Democrats in 2022, so the Democrats certainly have the ability to win in Iowa. The Seltzer poll is very highly-regarded and has been spot-on in recent years, and its release has led to delight for the Harris campaign and concern for the Trump campaign: if Harris can win in Iowa, then it is exceedingly likely she will walk the rest of the election at Obama 2008 levels. However, erring on the side of caution (as you probably know that I often do in my projections), I’m going to view this poll as an outlier for now. I could, of course, be wrong, but I’ll wait and see.

With that aside, here’s what I think the electoral college map will look like when all the votes are counted.

The most important point here: I still think Donald Trump is going to pull off a narrow win tomorrow, and I’m mostly going with my gut on this one. To that end, I think that Trump will best Kamala Harris by 287 Electoral College votes to 251. I am expecting a number of close races – states decided by fewer than 30,000 votes – and all the controversy and challenges that will inevitably go with that. But, on the eve of the Presidential Election, this is where I think things stand.

However, of the seven key swing states (and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District) which have been discussed at length as the states which will determine the outcome of the election, I think that only three or four of them are still truly undecided going into the election. We can say with a degree of confidence that Kamala Harris has a commanding enough lead in Nebraska’s 2nd District for us to take that out of the equation, and I see no reason why Trump would not carry Arizona, Georgia or North Carolina at this time given his sustained poll leads. This leads us with Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which will put the winner over the finish line.

With that said, even if it is just down to those four states, there is just one state – Pennsylvania – that will hold the key to the White House. While Michigan and Wisconsin may well be excruciatingly close, I feel that Kamala Harris at this time has not slipped back in the polls – even if she has only led by the smallest of margins – and so I don’t think that’s suddenly going to change by tomorrow. So to that end, I imagine Harris will just about manage to clinch those two states by what I would expect to be similar margins to what Trump had in 2016 and Biden had in 2020.

That leaves us with Nevada and Pennsylvania. And if the result comes down to Pennsylvania – as I suspect it will – neither candidate will actually need Nevada in order to win the election (my apologies to any Nevadans reading this). Provided Harris can win every other state we can expect her to, winning Pennsylvania would put her at exactly 270 votes – the number needed to win the election – while Trump would achieve a slightly wider margin of 281 if he were to win Pennsylvania. However, Nevada still has to go one way or another after the election, and so I am going to give the state to Trump in this projection. Trump and Harris truly have been neck-and-neck in Nevada, even the day before the election; however, working on the understanding that the polls will underestimate Trump slightly as they did in the past, I will give him the edge here.

Although this is how I ultimately think things will go – and I’m going with my gut on a lot of this – there is one major caveat: I could be wildly wrong. In they key states of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan, we will probably see either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris winning by the slimmest of margins anyway, and so a few thousand votes in each of those states going the other way could change the result completely, or even put one candidate or another over 300 Electoral College votes. And of course, if the Seltzer poll out of Iowa is correct, none of what I’ve said here will matter anyway.

At this point there’s nothing left to do now but wait and see. We might know by the early hours of Wednesday morning who will be the 47th President of the United States. However, and if the outlook for states like Pennsylvania is anything to go by, we may be having to wait a few days. Be prepared for a bumpy ride.

2024 Congressional Elections: My projections for the Senate and House of Representatives

With just a few days to go until the 2024 Presidential Election, it feels like we are no clearer on who might win than we were a few weeks or months ago. In previous elections, once we get to the couple of weeks of the campaign, we can usually get an idea of which candidate is leading in which state. Not so with this election: both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are largely locked in dead heats across most of the key swing states, and so we may have to wait a few days after the election to find out who will become the 47^th President of the United States.

However, the race for the White House is not the only election taking place on Tuesday. As ever, one third of the seats in the US Senate are up for election, as well as the entirety of the House of Representatives, which gets re-elected every two years. That’s not to mention the Governors, state officials and state legislatures, as well as countless local elections and ballot initiatives, which will all be up for election on Tuesday. And with the Senate and the House of Representatives, the battlefield looks like it will be just as close as the Presidential election; both parties are within easy reach of winning.

In this post, just a few days before the election, I will present how I think the elections to both chambers of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – may turn out on Tuesday night. And just like with the Presidential election, these races are also going to be determined by a very small number of states or districts. First, let’s take a look at the House of Representatives. All 435 seats in the House are being contested, and so 218 seats are needed to claim a majority.

With so many House districts, it’s harder to get down to precise numbers, so I’ve been a little more conservative in my estimate. That said, it’s going to be a close battle for control of the House of Representatives, and we’re not going to see a washout for either side. The way it stands, I would probably have the Republicans as being odds-on to hold the House, but with a similar or possibly smaller majority than they achieved in 2022. And even then, the Republicans’ battle to maintain control would not be won at that point, as we may well see a continued battle for the Speaker’s seat, much like Kevin McCarthy had in 2022; Mike Johnson may struggle to be re-apppointed, particularly if he faces a challenge from more hardline, pro-Trump members. However, with that all said, just a handful of Republican seats being flipped would hand power back to the Democrats in the House, and with the party united behind Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats would be in a better position to get to work straight away.

In this estimate I’m mostly giving incumbents the advantage, hence my estimate looking similar to 2022. But with many tightly-contested districts – including Alaska’s at-large district, New Mexico’s border-hugging 2^nd District, Maine’s Trump-supporting 2^nd district and Virginia’s 7^th District, where incumbent Abigail Spanberger is retiring to run for Governor of Virginia next year – every seat is going to count, and any one of them could be the one that breaks the result for one party or another.

When it comes to the Senate, however, the Republicans have a more distinct advantage. The GOP’s biggest leg-up to a majority is the retirement of Democrat-turned-independent Joe Manchin of West Virginia; his seat is most likely to be picked up by Republican incumbent Governor Jim Justice, himself a former Democrat. However, the Democrats are tied up in two hotly-contested races which could determine the control of the Senate: Montana and Ohio. In Montana, conservative Democrat Jon Tester – one of the last real red state Democrats – is up against businessman, Navy SEAL and firefighter Tim Sheehy, and the numbers are against him: Sheehy has managed to build up reasonable poll leads over the last couple of months. In Ohio, meanwhile, the Republicans are less certain: Sherrod Brown is currently locked in a dead heat with Trump-backed businessman Bernie Moreno. Ohio is no longer a swing state, having become safer Republican territory, and while Brown’s blue-collar credentials have aided him in the past, he is in the fight of his life to pull it off again.

These races aside, the rest of the Senate will likely remain how it is. In Arizona, Democrat Congressman Ruben Gallego is leading Kari Lake in the race to hold on to Kyrsten Sinema’s old seat, even though Trump is leading in the state nationally. In Nebraska, where both Senate seats are up for election thanks to a special election in Ben Sasse’s old seat, the Democrats are not standing a candidate in the regular election, and instead have given their backing to independent Dan Osborn. However, despite the unusual circumstances, he is still trailing incumbent Deb Fischer, who I expect will hold on. In Maryland, meanwhile, former Governor Larry Hogan will likely fall short of his longshot bid to win election to the Senate, leaving that seat with the Democrats.

However, as with the House of Representatives, this outcome would see the Republicans controlling the Senate with the slimmest of margins; falling short of this by just one seat would lead to a tied Senate. At that point, it would be down to the Vice President – be it Tim Walz or JD Vance – to cast the tie breaking vote, meaning that whichever party holds the White House has effective control of a tied Senate. And even then, who will ultimately win the Presidential Election is still an uncertainty.

So with just a few days to go, we have a situation where all three levels of national elections – the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives – are all on a knife edge. One small outlier or last-minute change in the direction of the wind could mean the difference between a Republican trifecta and a Democratic trifecta, or even a divided Congress. We could easily see one party controlling both or either the House and Senate by single-digit margins with a President from the other party. This would of course be, in this age of partisanship, a recipe for hardly anything getting done in Washington.

I wish I could make a clearer forecast of what we might be able to see on Tuesday night, but at this point it’s anyone’s guess. Before Tuesday I shall share with you all my final thoughts for what the Presidential Election might look like. Until then, when it comes to what the makeup and control of Congress might look like in January, we will just have to wait and see.

Three weeks to go: a projection for the 2024 Presidential Election

It is now just three weeks to go until the 2024 United States Presidential Election, in which we will find out if Vice President Kamala Harris will become the first woman to serve as Commander in Chief, or whether Donald Trump will win a second term in office, becoming only the second former President to win a second, non-consecutive term. And normally at this point in the campaign, we usually have some kind of indication as to who’s ahead in the campaign: not so with the 2024 election.

At the time of writing, FiveThirtyEight gives Kamala Harris a 55% chance of winning, compared to 45% for Donald Trump, while RealClearPolitics favours Trump by 56% to 43%. However, odds and percentages won’t matter when the votes are cast, and it will ultimately come down to which candidate is able to win in which states. In this post I will lay out what I think the result of the election will look like, three weeks before the votes are counted.

As is usually the case, we can confidently predict the result in most of the states, as these states will be more reliable in voting for one party or the other. And so, as has been the case for several months, this Presidential Election will ultimately be decided by the results in seven states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – as well as Nebraska’s second district, whose single vote could allow the winning candidate to get over the finish line of 270 votes in the Electoral College. And yet, even among these states, some lean more to one candidate over the other.

If we exclude the states I’ve just mentioned, we can probably expect Kamala Harris to win 225 Electoral College votes to Donald Trump’s 219 votes from their safer states. So let’s take a look at what the Electoral Map might look like when the votes are counted. Of the states mentioned above, I would put Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina in Trump’s column at this time: in Arizona, which Joe Biden claimed for the Democrats for the first time since 1996, Trump has been maintaining a tiny but consistent lead over Harris in the state’s polls; he maintained similarly consistent leads over Biden while he was in the running. The same is true in Georgia, where Trump has maintained similar leads and is set to win back the state. While Harris may have enjoyed a slight bump in the polls when she first accepted the Democratic nomination, this has not translated into lasting poll leads in these states. North Carolina also gives Trump the smallest of poll leads; however, while this state has been hotly contested in the last few elections, the Republican candidate has won the Tar Heel State in three of the last four elections, and so I’m leaving North Carolina with Trump for now.

On the other hand, Harris looks set to claim Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District for her column. Nebraska, along with Maine, is one of two states who split their Electoral College votes according to who wins each district, and Nebraska’s Omaha-based district has been highly marginal, with Barack Obama winning it for the first time in 2008, before returning to the Republicans for two elections, and was most recently won again by Joe Biden in 2020. Since being awarded the Democratic nomination, Harris has maintained decent leads in the district, and so this is probably one we can cross off our list. Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District may only carry one Electoral College vote, but in an election as close as this, even that single vote could make the difference between an Electoral College tie and a victory for the Harris campaign.

The remaining states – Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – are a lot harder to call at this point. In Nevada, which the Republicans last won in 2004, Trump had been enjoying leads of as much as five points over Joe Biden. However, since Harris replaced Biden on the ticket, the gap between the two candidates has disappeared, and neither candidate has been able to gain a single point lead over the other. In Wisconsin, Harris has maintained a narrow but consistent lead over Trump. For me, Wisconsin tilts towards Harris, but as we know well by now, poll leads do not always translate into results. With the state being marked as “even” by FiveThirtyEight, we may have to wait until election night itself to find out. In Michigan, meanwhile, the picture is almost identical to Wisconsin’s.

However, it is likely to be our remaining state, Pennsylvania, which will be the most tightly-watched state on election night. Commentators, such as the BBC’s Anthony Zurcher, suggest that Pennsylvania will be the state which puts the winning candidate over the line. With 19 Electoral College votes, Pennsylvania carries the largest clout of all the toss-up states we’re looking at, so this is going to be a must-win state for either campaign. Currently, FiveThirtyEight gives Harris an overall polling lead of 0.7%, whereas RealClearPolitics gives Trump a 0.3% average lead, whereas 270toWin gives Trump just a 0.1% advantage – so it could be we might not get a winner declared at all on election night if Pennsylvania is as tight as the polls suggest it will be.

So how do I think the electoral map will look three weeks out from the election? If I had to gauge what the outcome of the election would be at this point in time, I would probably give Trump the advantage. Polls have tended to underestimate Trump, and an underestimation of a fraction of a percentage point in one or two states could drastically change the result. Based on this – and going with my gut a little – I am chalking Nevada and Pennsylvania in Trump’s column, while giving Wisconsin and Michigan to Harris. This would give Donald Trump the victory in the election, with 287 Electoral College votes to 251 for Kamala Harris, giving Donald Trump a second term in office as the 47th President of the United States.

Of course, this could just as easily not happen. Three weeks is plenty of time for tiny events, incidents and all sorts of other things to shift the needle in these states one way or another, thereby completely changing the outcome. And none of this is to mention what might happen with the popular vote. Ultimately, this election is on a knife-edge. I will present a final projection in the final couple of days before the Presidential Election; we will see at that time if anything changes.

What happens if Joe Biden drops out of the presidential race?

We are less than four months away from the 2024 United States Presidential Election, and just weeks from the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. And yet, the conversation about whether President Joe Biden should run for a second term is getting more serious among Democratic circles.

Currently, Biden is trailing Donald Trump in the polls for November’s election, and many Democrats and Republicans have been debating whether he should continue in the role after January following questions about his age and mental ability, and following his catastrophic debate performance against Donald Trump in June. And to top it all off, Biden has now contracted Covid-19 again and is self-isolating; while this is not in itself a disqualifying factor, it is simply the latest item on a long list of concerns about his ability to continue for a second term, especially as he now risks missing the convention itself. And over the last few days, an increasing number of senior Democratic figures are suggesting that Biden should exit the race.

Ultimately, it will be Biden’s decision alone whether to continue in the race or stand aside. But in any case, how can Joe Biden be replaced as the Democratic nominee? Seeing as he won the nationwide primary contests, how would they be able to replace him?

As of this moment, Joe Biden is only the Democrats’ presumptive nominee; he will not formally be nominated until the Democratic National Convention from the 19th of August. Until then, the primary season – which ends with the conventions – is still ongoing. If Biden drops out before the convention, then all the delegates he has won so far would effectively become unbound. But without any more primary contests, how would a new candidate be nominated?

Article 3, Section 1(c) of the Democratic Party’s Charter and Bylaws states that the Democratic National Committee has the responsibility of “filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President” and Article 3, Section 7(c) says “a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson”. Meanwhile Article 2, Section 8(f) states that “Voting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be in accord with procedural rules adopted by the Rules and Bylaws Committee and approved by the Democratic National Committee”. So the charter suggests that, in the event of a candidate dropping out, the Democratic National Committee – comprised of the chairs of all 50 state Democratic parties as well as more than 200 elected members – would nominate a new candidate to the ticket, and then would meet to vote on that candidate.

What is less clear, however, is which candidates would qualify for the new nominations; the charter does not state if candidates can throw their hat into the ring as with primary contests, or if the Democratic National Committee would choose candidates to be voted on themselves. Additionally, this would not be without its problems, as party bosses would effectively be hand-picking candidates for President whom voters across the country had not cast their ballots for.

Has this ever happened before? The answer is yes: in 1972, when the Democrats nominated South Dakota Senator George McGovern for President against Richard Nixon, McGovern nominated Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However, Eagleton had a history of mental health difficulties involving hospitalisations; with 1970s attitudes towards mental health being what they were, Eagleton was considered too much of a risk, and so he resigned from the ticket, being replaced by Sargeant Shriver. Historically, however, it was not uncommon for Presidential candidates to be thrown in for the first time at the convention: in the 19th Century, the Republicans nominated presidential candidates – who would ultimately win the election – Rutherford B. Hayes and James Garfied at the convention itself when the nomination votes were deadlocked.

So if Biden were to drop out, who would replace him? Probably the foremost candidate would be Vice President Kamala Harris, who, as Vice President, is second in line to the Presidency should the President die in office or resign; Harris therefore would likely be whom the party would look to first. However, Harris did not perform well in the primaries ahead of the 2020 Presidential Election and did not even make it to the debates. Aside from Harris, the Democrats may turn to one of their governors, such as Gavin Newsom of California, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. Other Democratic governors who may hold more centre-ground appeal could be Andy Beshear of Kentucky or Jared Polis of Pennsylvania. Whoever gets nominated, the ability to beat Donald Trump will be that candidate’s immediate concern.

While more Democratic figures are joining together to suggest Biden should bow out, ultimately it will be the President’s decision alone whether to run or not. And as of this moment, he has not shown any sign that he intends to step down. However, with senior Democrats such as Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Shumer saying that Biden could also cost the Democrats much-needed wins in the House and Senate as well, Biden may have to reflect on whether or not they are right; the Democratic Party is bigger than just Biden, after all. The conversations that Biden will have with his family and his top team over the coming days will determine what he does next. Until such a time however, the race is as the memes describe: it ain’t Joever yet.