Not Again

As Tim Balk of The New York Times reported on Tuesday

Hillary Clinton suggested in a new interview that the Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 boiled down to a “terrible miscalculation” — President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s decision to run for re-election.

At an event in Manhattan on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told The New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, that Mr. Biden had made a “terrible mistake for himself, his legacy and for the country” in trying to run again at age 81.

If Mr. Biden had decided to “pass the torch” and the Democratic Party had held a competitive presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Remnick, “whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten Donald Trump.”

Chris Cillizza acknowledges that there has been a bit of a rivalry between Biden and Clinton but believes that the latter was correct to note that the President should have bowed out considerably earlier than he did. However, he argues also (at 7:20)

Now, would someone who emerged in an open primary process had Biden dropped out in the summer of 2023- would that person have definitely beaten Donald Trump in November of 2024?

No, I think there was sigificant unhappines with the state of the econnomy, with Democrats, with Joe Biden in particular, with how he had led the economy, how much he understood about the economy. So I don't think it would have- it's not just an easy fix, that they just nominate somebody else in an open primary process and that person beats Donald Trump. But the way that it played out by Biden staying too long, he should never have run for a second term, staying on for too long, the debate, the three weeks of is he going to stay on, is he going to get out- and eventually he gets out and Kamala Harris steps in without any primary or anyone voting on anything, that clearly doomed them, right?

Wrong.

Cillizza adds "I'm not sure the Democrats would have won anyway but the way that played out doomed them.

        "

Of course we don't know if the new candidate, assuming it was not the Vice President, would have won. And Cillizza, admittedly, reflects conventional wisdom, as does The Times' Balk, who wrote "Mr. Biden ultimately left the race in late July 2024, immediately putting his weight behind Ms. Harris, his vice president, but leaving her just three months to build her own campaign before Election Day."

Do you see what they're doing? In the case of Cillizza- a straight shooter- it is unintentional, and perhaps also in case of The Times. 

It's in the title of Harris' memoir about the general election campaign.  Whether it was the decision of the ex-candidate, the publicher or someone else, the title of the book was 107 Days, in part as an argument that the Vice President faced an uphill battle to win the election.

But she did not. Almost to the moment that Biden dropped out, the nomination of Harris was a fait accompli. In a review of her book, Vanity Fair explained that on that day

By 10 p.m. at the Naval Observatory, jigsaw pieces were still strewn across the kitchen table. But the puzzle of Harris’s nomination had been solved. She’d called more than 100 people. Not a single potential rival had challenged her. By Monday, Harris had the backing of a majority of Democrats in Congress. Within 48 hours she had the support of most delegates who would be at the convention. A senior adviser summed up Harris’s two-day marathon as a political tour de force: “A lot of people were like, ‘We need a process.’ Well, there is a process: getting the delegates to commit. We just needed to do it and we did it.”

Aside from incumbents, most candidates for a presidential nomination- especially in the Democratic Party- have to run a gauntlet before securing sufficient delegates. Not so, Kamala Harris, behind whom most prominent Democrats, including virtually any possible challenger, quickly lined up. The national convention was highly successful, Harris won her debate with Trump going away, the Party was united behind the nominee, enthusiasm was impressive, and victory seemed likely. However 

One hundred seven days later, as history will recount, Team Harris hit rock bottom. Yet it didn’t seem so as Election Day dawned. Though Harris was behind in the battleground states, her spokespeople were oddly upbeat. Appearing on MSNBC back on October 27, campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon had declared, “We are very confident we’re going to win this thing.” On Friday, November 1, senior adviser David Plouffe posted on X that late-​breaking undecided voters were going for Harris by more than 10 points.

A campaign has a gravitational pull, and chief of staff Voles was feeling it. “You get sucked into the momentum,” she said. “Like you believe it. I’ve been on winning ones and losing ones, and this felt more like [Bill] Clinton’s [in 1992] than [Michael] Dukakis’s [in 1988].” Voles wasn’t talking poll numbers or analytics, but intangibles. “The rallies were so big and so enthusiastic. People were lining the streets.” But Harris’s pollsters didn’t share the kumbaya cohesion.

Although Biden should have withdrawn from the race earlier, his failure to do so did not doom his replacement on the ticket- far from it. Harris had a great opportunity to win, especially given that the GOP had less timefor opposition research about her than it would have if it had been clear for months that she would be the nominee.  It was not the brief nature of the campaign nor the quality of her campaign; it was her.

After she lost to Donald Trump in 2016, Hillary Clinton could have opted to seek a rematch. However, she realized that she might not win the 2020 nomination and if she did, couldn't be certain that she'd win the general election. She understood the limits to her popularity and electability.

Individuals in or around Joe Biden in 2023 and the first half of  2024 refused to warn the President that he was old and appeared too feeble to mount a successful campaign for re-election. Now Harris, she of  the "107 days," is reportedly eyeing a run for the 2028 presidential nomination.  Self-awarness is not her strength. The Democratic Party cannot afford another loss. For the good of the Party, someone needs to read Kamala Harris the riot act. 

Share |

A Clear Possibility

One of these, a columnist with The New Yorker, and the other, a prominent anti-Trump GOP lawyer, is right and the other is wrong.

First, the journalist:

Perhaps question is better rephrased — Why do you keep suggesting that you would seek to remain in office for a third term despite the Constitution’s clear ban? Why are you misleading your supporters and the American public that this is a possibility? https://t.co/1LOr4pfUkz

— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) October 27, 2025

 To summarize: Why is President Trump suggesting it is a possibility, despite the Constitution, that he would seek to remain in office for a third term?

Now, the ex-husband of Kellyanne Conway:

He doesn't care about law. He doesn't care about rules. He doesn't care about the country. He doesn't care about truth. He doesn't care about right or wrong.

He only cares about himself. And most importantly—what he can get away with. Regardless of whether it is… https://t.co/IHy9wwf9uB

— George Conway 🇺🇸🚫👑🐸 (@gtconway3d) October 27, 2025

This is not a close call. Glasser obviously is referring to Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment to the USA Constitution, which 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.

The pertinent portion of Section 1 is

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.

Thus, the only portion of this section, or of this amendment, or of the Constitution is "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice."  J. Michael Luttig, bless his heart, can argue as effectively as possible and stand on his head, but it is clear what these fourteen words mean, and what they do not preclude.

Constitutionally, Donald cannot run for a third term. He can run for Vice President and if on the winning ticket, ascend to the presidency anytime after January 20, 2029 at 12:00 noon. That would, of course, depend upon the 48th President stepping down, which would be his part of the deal.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump does not care about law, rules, the country, truth, or right and wrong. He does care about himself and is always probing to determine what he can get away with.

That's one of the President's motives in militarizing the nation's streets. He is " federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard withing those states,"  sending Texas National Guard soldiers to the Chicago area, and planning to send California National Guard members to Portland, Oregon. Portland today, Chicago tomorrow, other major cities thereafter depending on whether he can get away with this.

Additionally, Trump is now doing what he can to shove some cash to soldiers: a $130 million dollar "donation" from Timothy Mellon, heir to the Mellon family fortune, which is almost certainly illegal; and tax revenues diverted from research and development appropriations, also almost certainly illegal. However, when planning a coup against a nation, it's always helpful to have the military on your side.

And why not send American tax dollars wherever the President wants to, notwithstanding Congress' sole authority to do so?  Trump suggests he should be awarded $230 million in damages for investigations of him conducted by the Department of Justice in the immediately preceding Administration. Though not sure, he can get it because the decision on paying him "would have to go across my desk" while "it's interesting, 'cause I'm the one that makes the decision, right?"  

Well, not constitutionally, but laws and rules are not things he's concerned with. And if he orders his subject, Pam Bondi to pay, she will. And if in the future, he demands $500 million or more for, perhaps, a "bonus" for exemplary work as President, a precedent will have been set.

As approved by Bondi's Daddy, election "monitors" are being sent to polling sites in New Jersey and California after "requests" by the Republican Party in those states, eager to please Donald. Next year, there will be more in order to ensure GOP victory at the polls.

If still alive, Donald Trump will do whatever he can to remain as President or become President again. He may declare a national emergency and claim the right to cancel the election. He could challenge the clear and obvious meaning of the 22nd Amendment. Perhaps he will de facto install himself as the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee and if successful in the general election, take over the office of the presidency soon after his running mate is inaugurated. However, he has said that he would not do that and as we know, Donald Trump never lies.

Share |

Above the Almighty

A guy evidently tweeting under a creative pseudonym can't really be serious.

Do people say #NoKings because they really believe Trump will try to claim the Presidency for a third/fourth/fifth term? Is everyone really that stupid?

— Bud Bundy (@ItsBudBundy) October 14, 2025

As USA Today reported

President Donald Trump had "Trump 2028" hats on display when meeting with Congress' top Democrats in the Oval Office ahead of the government shutdown.

Photos posted to Trump's Truth Social account show the hats set out on his desk when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer met with Republican leaders on Sept. 29 as the two sides tried to come to an agreement on spending to stave off a shutdown. The meeting was unsuccessful, and the shutdown began Oct.1.

"They just randomly appeared in the middle of the meeting on the desk. It was the strangest thing ever," Jeffries said on CNN on Sept. 30. He said he turned to Vice President JD Vance and asked him, "don't you got a problem with this?"

"And he said, 'no comment,' and that was the end of it," Jeffries recounted.

And as the fact-checking website Snopes reminds us

Trump, who was elected to a nonconsecutive second term in 2024, is constitutionally ineligible to run as president in 2028, when his second term concludes, due to the 22nd Amendment.

However, rumors about him considering running for a third term have swirled for some time, and the official retail website (archived) of the Trump Organization was selling (archived) red hats reading "Trump 2028." The product description read: "Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat."

Such rumors predated the commencement of Trump's second stint in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025. At different points, Trump has both suggested and ruled out the idea of a third term.

Although the 22nd Amendment does not preclude an individual from serving a third term as President, it does in fact preclude him from running for a third term. However, Steve Bannon has an answer for that, calmly telling Batya Ungar-Sargon

I think that there are many different alternatives that at the appropriate time after the midterms, uh, in '26, uh, we will roll out. But I think there are many different alternatives, uh, to make sure that President Trump is on the ballot and if he's on the ballot, he'll win.

Bannon said they are trying to figure out a way for Trump to get a third… pic.twitter.com/Yykf3gFdcd

— ❤🎹 Ames 🎹❤ (@Real_Ames) October 14, 2025

Having chosen previously not to rule out a third term, Donald in March claimed that he "probably" would not run again.  This false show of ambivalence allows Trump the luxury of ambiguity, thus empowering CNN and other mainstream media to ignore his apparent interest in circumventing the Constitution. It encourages him eventually to seek the office again because of (alleged) public demand and permits supporters such as tweeter Bundy to accuse critics of the President of being deranged or stupid.. 

It is clever strategy for someone who does not intend to walk away from the Oval Office on January 20, 2029. And he shouldn't go quietly because if Donald Trump is above the Almighty, there is no reason he should be, or could be subservient to the U.S. Constitution. And if we ever doubted the supremacy of the King of America, we cannot do so now, after the interview of one of the President's sons with Trump influencer Benny Johnson.

Eric Trump: "We're saving Christianity. We've saving God. We've saving the family unit. We're saving this nation. I mean, DEI is out of the window…” @atrupar
pic.twitter.com/0s1Q1Z0J2q

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) October 15, 2025

We're saving God. There is no way around it- if President Trump's supporters, the Administration generally, or the President specifically is the "we" who are saving God, they are superior to God. And if "God is good" or "God is great," then saving God is an unsurpassed act of divine mercy, a deed beyond anything imaginable. Undertaking such an enterprise must not be questioned.

Donald Trump did not leave the presidency gracefully in January of 2021. He now has a great deal of power, which is increasing weekly, as is likely to continue with creative use of the military. How he will decide to hang on beyond January 20, 2029 us unknown. However, given his mortal existence- which, despite what Eric and some others believe is his nature- he will try to do so somehow.

Share |

Simply One Step in the Inevitable Direction

NBC News reported Sunday

President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not joking.”

“A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.”

“I’m focused on the current,” Trump added, in some of his most extensive comments to date about serving a third term.

Coyly

When asked whether he wanted another term, the president responded, “I like working.”

“I’m not joking,” Trump said, when asked to clarify. “But I’m not — it is far too early to think about it.”

When asked whether he has been presented with plans to allow him to seek a third term, Trump said, “There are methods which you could do it.”

NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump responded that “that’s one” method.

“But there are others, too,” Trump added.

Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded “no.”

Not joking and not diverting attention from anything else. This is floating an idea to see if it flies. There are at least four ways Trump can possibly occupy the Oval Office sometime beyond January 20, 2022. While more sanguine than I am of keeping King Trump from doing so, Chris Cillizza (video below) explains

There is clearly a will for it. He wants this to happen. He is making very clear that he wants it to happen. He talked about this in his first term. He's talked about it now in his second term. It's moved from "oh, I'm joking" to "I am not joking" and, you know, this is a step in that direction.

   

This is a step in that direction. If Trump waited, till, say, December of 2027 to declare his intention to hang on to the presidency or return to it, it might come as a shock to the public and the mainstream media. Therefore, he has decided to normalize the possibility. At this point, it sounds preposterous to many people but as he consolidates power and periodically raises the possibility of a third term, the notion will become more mainstream, hence more acceptable.

There won't be a constitutional amendment erasing the limit of the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency. A Vance-Trump ticket is an option. Alternatively, martial law may be declared or Trump will cling to power by initiating a war or claiming one is under way. National emergency. If he has no other choice, he will refuse to leave office or force a confrontation with the U.S. Supreme Court. If he loses there, his rallying cry will be: you and whose army?

The Overton Window will continue, perhaps subtly, to shift. Whatever route he eventually takes, the President, Bannon, and others will periodically float the idea that Trump will serve one or more additional terms.. Donald J. Trump may not survive the remainder of this term, but will not give up power willingly otherwise.

Share |

It Could Be Done

Evidently, anyone could earn a law degree at Fordham University in the 1990's. Last week, Steve Bannon told Chris Cuomo (at 1:36 of the video below) on the latter's show on NewsNation

...and President Trump, I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028. So I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky. We've got him now. He's on fire and uh, I' a huge supporter, want to see him again in 2028.

Cuomo, who got his Juris Doctor degree from the Bronx institution in 1995, replied "... and you know he's term-limited. how do you think he gets another term?"

 

 Afterward, Cuomo brought on regulars Bill O'Reilly and Stephen A. Smith to argue about the possibility of Trump serving as President after January, 2029. O'Reilly remarked "O.K., so that's a fantasy and I don't really consider those kinds of things. It's not going to happen, never will happen, not worth my time or your time." Smith responded

Respectfully, Bill O'Reilly, it doesn't matter whether it's not going to happen. It matters that people on the right who preached for decades upon decades about following the Constitution suddenly come on national television and they say there's nothing wrong with circumventing it. That's the issue.

The Twenty-Second Amendment says it, O.K.? It explicitly states in the Constitution that for the presidency, there will be a two-term limit. No person can serve more than two terms. They know this. They're the same people that spent decades and decades telling us "the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution, we're going to follow the Constitution. But now that they've got a guy in office that they swear by, suddenly the rules don't apply.

So I understand what you're saying when you say it's not going to happen. But to dismiss it and act lie it means absolutely nothing, well, I got news for you. The election ain't till 208, o.k., and there's going to be a hell of a lot, a hell of a lot of millions of American citizens, that people on the right who are supporters of Trump, have absolutely no problem echoing and articulating and parroting that kind of speech that Steve Bannon just threw out there. I'm very alarmed by it and I don't even think it's going to happen myself. But the gall, the audacity for him to come on national television and say such a thing. I think it's incredibly alarming.

 

Credit "Stephen A.," as he likes to be called for condemning the GOP for its hypocrisy because for decades many Republicans would claim that they were "constitutionalists" or "strict constitutionalists." And suggestions by Bannon, the President, and others that Trump may run for a third term are alarming, though perhaps they may eventually wake Democrats up to the possibility that Trump may still be in the White House after 1/20/29. 

Nonetheless, he's wrong (as is Cuomo) about the 22nd Amendment, Section 1 of which reads (with relevant portion here placed in asterisks)

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.

This Amendment is commonly misunderstood. According to The Independent, "the 22nd amendment of the constitution limits any one person to a maximum of two four-year terms as president." A Newsweek reporter writes that "Bannon has already said Trump should run for a third term in 2028, though the 22nd Amendment bans any one individual from serving more than two terms." Peter Nicholas of NBC News writes "yet others believe that if the Constitution is somehow amended to permit a third term..." and thereby strongly implies that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow that third term.

But it wouldn't. Neither the 22nd Amendment, nor anything else in the document, precludes a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) term for a President. It precludes election to a third term. Presumably, the authors of the Amendment assumed that no tyrant would become President and if he did, he would get the hint.

Lindsey Choo of Forbes is the rare reporter or pundit who clearly appears to have read the Amendment and not assumed that which isn't present. She notes

The 22nd Amendment specifically bars anybody from being “elected” president more than twice, so some experts think Trump could serve in a temporary presidential role under specific circumstances, such as if he were to become vice president and ascend to the presidency.

Such an ascension would occur if Donald Trump in 2027 or 2028 conditioned his support for a candidate in the GOP primary upon his or her agreement to place Trump on the ticket. If the ticket were victorious, the winning presidential candidate presumably would resign shortly after taking the oath of office. For added effect of the best Nielsen numbers ever for an inauguration, the news could leak that the winning candidate would announce his/her resignation during the acceptance speech. Trump would find the attentions and the ratings absolutely orgasmic.

The Ukrainian parliament has postponed elections until Russia's war against Ukraine ends. President Trump might reasonably (albeit dishonestly) claim in 2028 that the nation is at war, whether in the wake of a missile strike against Iran, fentanyl or immigrants crossing the border, or European leaders defying him on any matter. There also is a legitimate possibility that President Trump would declare a different national emergency or martial law for some reason or another. The man's creativity is virtually endless. 

Alternatively, Donald Trump, 78 years old as of now, may die before the next Republican National Convention. Or maybe he will decide voluntarily to give up the presidency on January 20, 2029. When pigs fly.

Share |