Democrats may require 2028 contenders to release full health information after disastrous Biden campaign
Some Democrats are discussing plans to require 2028 contenders to release their full health information after the disastrous campaign of former President Joe Biden.
In 2028, candidates who were more disconnected from the Biden White House may be able to garner more credibility with voters among those who feel betrayed by party leadership.
Democratic strategists speaking to The Bulwark said a consensus is forming that whoever campaigns for the party's nomination in 2028 will have to share a large amount of health information and a more extensive health report than previously expected. There's also a belief that anyone over 70 won't run.
Biden recently announced an 'aggressive' prostate cancer diagnosis, which raised additional concerns regarding his health while in office. The former president was forced out of the 2024 race after a catastrophic debate performance against President Donald Trump in June last year, and he was replaced atop the Democratic ticket by then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Democratic strategists have also grown tired of the former president claiming he would have won had he stayed in the race.
Anthony Coley, a Democratic strategist who worked for the Biden administration, told The Hill last week, 'Would it be nice if Biden finally accepted and admitted he shouldn't have run for a second term? Sure.'
'But candidly, does it really matter at this point? History will have the final say — and its first draft isn't looking good,' he added.
This comes as Harris is reportedly considering a run for California governor next year, but has yet to announce a campaign even as the race takes shape around her.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who's running to replace California Governor Gavin Newsom, said in a statement on Tuesday that Harris and Biden's former Health and Human Services Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who has announced that he's also running for governor in the state, should apologize for covering up Biden's health status.
Villaraigosa referenced the recent book Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.
'What I've seen in news coverage and excerpts from the new book 'Original Sin' is deeply troubling,' he said. 'At the highest levels of our government, those in power were intentionally complicit or told outright lies in a systematic cover up to keep Joe Biden's mental decline from the public.'
'Now, we have come to learn this cover up includes two prominent California politicians who served as California Attorney General – one who is running for Governor and another who is thinking about running for Governor,' he added.
'Those who were complicit in the cover up should take responsibility for the part they played in this debacle, hold themselves accountable, and apologize to the American people,' Villaraigosa said. 'I call on Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra to do just that – and make themselves available to voters and the free press because there's a lot of questions that need to be answered.'
The revelations regarding Biden's decline in office are set to have significant effects on how the Democratic Party conducts its elections and how candidates run their campaigns. It may also affect the demands placed on candidates, the media strategies they choose to enact, and the scheduling of presidential primaries.
While every election leads to soul-searching within a party, the 2024 loss and Biden's handling of his campaign led to a significant trust issue that the party will have to confront, Democratic strategists have said, according to The Bulwark. Some strategists compared it to the authorization of the war in Iraq, which shaped the contours of the 2008 primary and which saw the campaigns of those who backed the invasion crater.
'Obama was fortunate because he wasn't in D.C., so it allowed him to have natural distance. He could say 'I'm an outsider' without saying 'I'm an outsider',' a Democratic strategist who worked on a 2008 campaign told the outlet. Former President Barack Obama wasn't in Congress in 2002 and, as such, he didn't have to cast a ballot on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's crusade against all immigrants – even legal ones – is unprecedented
The Donald Trump administration has billed itself as taking unprecedented steps to crack down on illegal immigration. While the total number of deportations has yet to surge, it may happen soon. The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, supports suspending habeas corpus to speed up deportations, and the border czar, Tom Homan, has suggested blatantly ignoring court orders. Private companies are also lining up to cash in on mass deportations. Nonetheless, Trump's approach so far to immigration deemed illegal has not differed much from what Barack Obama and Joe Biden did. So why does everything feel different? The answer is that Trump has launched an unprecedented crusade against legal immigrants. And the tactics have been jarringly lawless and cruel. For example, Trump's administration has almost completely banned refugee resettlement, sought to revoke temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands who have immigrated to flee extreme conditions, eliminated the legal status of thousands of international students, arrested legal asylum seekers at their immigration check-ins, jailed other legal asylum seekers in a maximum security prison in El Salvador, declared an end to birthright citizenship and revoked the legal status of nearly a million humanitarian parolees who had applied for legal entry using the CBP One app. While the Obama and Biden administrations likewise took aggressive measures to regulate undocumented immigration – thus earning well-founded criticisms from immigration activists who took to calling Obama the 'deporter-in-chief' – both presidents also worked to expand the pathways for legal immigration. Some of their initiatives were blocked by Congress or the courts, but the result was a net expansion of legal immigration under both administrations. On the other hand, Trump has consistently worked to block as many pathways to legal migration as possible. In Trump's first term, certain aspects of his immigration agenda were similarly constrained by Congress or the courts, but the result was still a major decrease in legal immigration. In Trump's second term, this assault on legal immigrants has escalated at a furious pace, and while courts have already found many of these actions illegal according to long-established precedent, the administration shows no sign of slowing down. Indeed, Trump officials have become increasingly bold in defying court rulings, and all of this is taking place under the watch of a supreme court so Trump-friendly that last year it granted him sweeping immunity to commit crimes. As a historian of border policy, I find Tump's attack on the CBP One app especially demoralizing. A longstanding contradiction in our immigration system is that while technically people have the right to apply for asylum once they reach US soil, it is incredibly difficult to arrive in the US to exercise this right. Accordingly, the only legal way to immigrate for the vast majority of people is to first survive a deadly gauntlet of oceans, jungles, deserts and criminal organizations, and only then begin an asylum application, which is still a long shot. David Fitzgerald's 2019 book Refuge Beyond Reach offers a detailed description of this insidious system and its long history. While it was largely unappreciated at the time, the Biden administration took meaningful steps to address this deadly contradiction by creating a way to legally apply for asylum through the CBP One app while still abroad. This enabled people facing grave humanitarian crises to start applications outside the US, and if approved, they could then buy plane tickets and travel to the US safely with humanitarian parole. The initiative was successful, legal, and in many ways, historic. Hundreds of thousands of people were able to migrate legally and escape extremely difficult conditions. This infuriated conservatives, who launched a barrage of vicious lies to demonize the program and the people using it. JD Vance insisted on the debate stage that these immigrants were illegal, and when corrected by debate moderators, whined that fact-checking was against the rules. Ted Cruz used his podcast to accuse Biden of chartering flights to bring in undocumented people who would vote Democrat. And Trump accused them of eating pets. Just by cancelling the program for future enrollees, Trump is already launching a disturbing assault on legal immigration. Yet in an escalation of cruelty that is difficult to even comprehend, Trump canceled the program retroactively as well, capriciously revoking the legal status of hundreds of thousands of extremely vulnerable people who simply followed the rules. If you think that that sounds dystopian and cruel, you're right. And that's exactly the point: cruelty itself is a tactic to scare immigrants away. The child separation policy from Trump's first term was an early example of this penchant for using visible displays of cruelty as an immigration deterrent and his new administration has worked around the clock to invent creative new horrors: from shipping deportees to Guantánamo Bay, to sending masked agents to disappear students, to indefinitely detaining immigrants with no criminal record in a notoriously dangerous prison in El Salvador (many of whom were arrested while attending legal immigration appointments), and then sending Noem to El Salvador to do a photoshoot with these political prisoners as props. The message to immigrants is clear: leave, or never come in the first place, because this could happen to you, even if you do it 'the right way'. The takeaway from all of this is that right now, real people – our friends, families, students and neighbors – are suffering at the hands of a cruel and lawless government. And while Republican policymakers are driving these actions, many centrist Democrats, such as Gavin Newsom, are giving tacit approval by writing off these disturbing human rights violations as merely the 'distraction of the day'. I refuse to ignore this suffering. I hope you refuse as well. Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The core traits of INCELS: Scientists identify 12 key characteristics in disturbed, women-hating men
A new study has shed light on incels - and exactly why some men are more likely to become women-hating recluses. Researchers from Swansea University and the University of Texas at Austin surveyed 561 incels from the UK and the US. And their results revealed 12 key characteristics shared by this group. The surprising results show that the most important common factors are not right-wing ideology or ethnicity, but extremely poor mental health and a history of bullying. Incels, or involuntary celibates, are a group of men who believe they are unable to have sex or form relationships and are often extremely hostile to women as a result. Shows like Netflix 's Adolescence paint a picture of the stereotypical incel as y oung, white, right-wing, chronically online, and violent. However, this research suggests that incel ideology is attracting a far wider section of society than previously thought. Co-author Dr Joe Whittaker, a criminologist from Swansea University, says: 'While drama can be a useful tool for facilitating public debate, it is also important to have rigorous academic research to back it up.' Although the survey found that incels had a 'broad range of characteristics', some factors were more common. Dr Andrew Thomas, a psychologist at Swansea University, says: 'If we had to point to their most consistent characteristics, it would be incredibly poor mental health and their feelings of bitterness, frustration, and disdain towards women—though even these show variation within the sample.' The most important factor was that incels typically suffered from exceptionally poor mental health. More than a third of incels suffer from moderate depression or anxiety while 37 per cent said they had 'daily suicidal thoughts'. Co-author William Costello, a researcher in psychology from the University of Texas at Austin, says: 'Incels are typically framed in terms of the threat they pose to others, but our findings suggest they may be just as dangerous, if not more so, to themselves.' However, this finding may also be concerning given that incel ideology has already been the inspiration for several mass shootings and murders. Studies have shown that over 70 per cent of all mass shooters were suicidal before or intended to die during their killing sprees. Incels' high rates of poor mental health came alongside high rates of loneliness and a history of bullying. Out of those surveyed, 86 per cent of incels reported having experienced bullying compared to just a third of the general population. Likewise, when asked to assess their loneliness, 48 per cent of incels selected the highest possible option. This could be a product of the fact that almost half of all incels live with their parents or grandparents while a further quarter live alone. In that isolation, the researchers point out that incel forums may become someone's only source of social contact or companionship Another extremely common factor is incels' extremely high rates of autism and neurodivergence. During the study, the researchers gave incels the 'Autism Spectrum Quotient-10' test, a screening tool used to see whether someone should be referred for a formal autism assessment. A third of all participants would have been referred for clinical assessment, compared to just one per cent of the general population. In terms of ideology, incels beliefs were often varied but centred on a few key principles. Just like in Adolescence, the majority of incels agreed with the so-called 80/20 principle - the belief that 80 per cent of women are attracted to 20 per cent of men. This principle is the cornerstone of incel 'black pill' ideology which states that incels should give up on relationships because they can never improve their dating prospects. Likewise, incels are unified in their belief that 'feminists', followed by 'the political left', 'wider society', and 'women', were the biggest threats to their community. However, incels are not all members of the far right as they are often made out to be. In fact, incels typically viewed themselves as 'centre-left' and shared left-wing views on issues such as homosexuality, corporate profits, and social benefits. In another break with the stereotype, incels are also a far more diverse group than many people believe. Only 58 per cent of incels taking the online survey said they were white while the remaining 42 per cent were from a variety of ethnicities. Likewise, incels were mainly middle-class but reported coming from all socioeconomic backgrounds and the majority were either employed or in full-time education. Dr Thomas says: 'Incels are often stereotyped in the media as young, white, right-wing men who are not in employment, education, or training. 'When we tested the accuracy of these stereotypes using primary data collection, we discovered misconceptions.' However, one of the study's most important findings was the identification of which two sub-groups of incels were more likely to develop harmful attitudes which could lead to violence. The first group are incels with psychological vulnerabilities such as autism spectrum disorder or a history of bullying and abuse who may be drawn to 'black pill' ideology by feelings of rejection. The second were those on the 'dispositional extremism trajectory' whose innate characteristics disposed them to misogynistic violence. These incels had high rates of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism as well as right-wing political views which lead to a greater risk of violence. The researchers hope these distinctions will help de-radicalisation and counter-extremism efforts target the right people with the right interventions. What is an Incel? 'Incel' stands for 'involuntary celibate' and is a term used by a certain group of men who blame their inability to form relationships and have sex on women. Incel groups have been accused of inciting violence and misogyny online and numerous communities and subreddits have been banned over their content. A cryptic Facebook message posted by Toronto suspect Alek Minassian just before the incident suggested he was part of an online community angry over their inability to form relationships with the opposite sex. The now-deleted post saluted Elliot Rodger, a community college student who killed six people and wounded 13 in shooting and stabbing attacks near the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 2014. Calling Rodger 'the Supreme Gentleman', the Facebook post declared: 'The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys!' Chads and Stacys are names used in internet forums to denote people with more active sexual lives. The reference to the term 'incel', meaning involuntarily celibate, was a term used by Rodger in online posts raging at women for rejecting him romantically. The anti-women sentiment also recalled Canada's 1989 massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique, an engineering college in Montreal, when 25-year-old Marc Lepine entered a classroom. He then separated the men from the women, told the men to leave and opened fire, killing 14 women before killing himself.
Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's administration has asked Serbia to accept deportees, Bloomberg News reports
June 5 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is pushing Serbia and other Balkan countries to take in the migrants deported from the U.S, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday.
