IIRC people tended to exaggerate Biden hinting that he would be a one-term president. I think the most he ever said on this is that he would be a "transitional" president, which is fairly vague.Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:42 pm They needed to talk about Biden planning for only 1 term from the very beginning (He hinted at that in his bid for presidency) - but they didn't. As soon as they didn't - there was no chance the Democratic party would pivot away from him as the incumbent. So, this is one thing that is squarely on Biden (I assume). It's that he didn't PUSH/INSIST that he was here for one term from the beginning.
I imagine if there was any 'think tank' behind this decision, it was decided it wasn't worth risking the historical power of the incumbency.
FWIW I agree that if Biden weren't going to run again, he needed to say that fairly early, to avoid the media covering this as Biden leaving essentially in defeat. I also have tended to think that it would be foolish to toss away his incumbency advantage when there wasn't an obvious unifying figure waiting in the wings, risking a potentially brutal Democratic primary that could tear open centrist / left wing divides. That said...I'm not seeing much of an incumbency edge for Biden so...maybe I was wrong about this. Ultimately though I'm fine with Biden, old and all, so I don't find much advantage in guessing what people are going to think in the general election.