Biden Preparing for 2024 Run

Will America re-elect an 82-year-old to the White House?

President Joe Biden delivers remarks before signing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Monday, November 15, 2021, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith

President Joe Biden, who turned 79 yesterday, sets a new record for Oldest President every day he’s in office. And, despite some signals during the campaign that he intended to be a one-termer, he’s giving every indication that he intends to stand for re-election three years from now.

President Biden and members of his inner circle have reassured allies in recent days that he plans to run for reelection in 2024, as they take steps to deflect concern about the 79-year-old president’s commitment to another campaign and growing Democratic fears of a coming Republican return to power.

The efforts come as the broader Democratic community has become increasingly anxious after a bruising six-month stretch that has seen Biden’s national approval rating plummet more than a dozen points, into the low 40s, amid growing concerns about inflation, Democratic infighting in Washington and faltering public health efforts to move beyond the covid-19 pandemic.

The message is aimed in part at tamping down the assumption among many Democrats that Biden may not seek reelection given his age and waning popularity, while also effectively freezing the field for Vice President Harris and other potential presidential hopefuls.

“The only thing I’ve heard him say is he’s planning on running again,” said former senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a Biden friend. “And I’m glad he is.”

At a virtual fundraiser this month, Biden told a small group of donors that he plans to seek a second term, underscoring the message he gave the nation in March at his first White House news conference before cautioning that he had “never been able to plan 3½, four years ahead, for certain.”

“What he is saying publicly is what he firmly believes. There’s no difference,” said former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, who attended the fundraising event. “He will not run if he feels he can’t do the job physically or emotionally.”

Running for re-election is the default position. The last eligible President to decline to do so was Lyndon Johnson, who concluded a 40-minute address to the nation on March 31, 1968 by saying, “With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the Presidency of your country.” Accordingly, he famously declared, “I shall not seek, and will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”

While magnanimous, it was also the case that the war in Vietnam and civil rights protests combined to create an atmosphere that would have made it unlikely, indeed, that he would win a second full term.

Now, of course, it would be foolish, indeed, for Biden to make himself a lame duck any earlier than he has to even if he didn’t have the fire in the belly to run again. It’s hard enough to get anything done without other Democrats scrambling to see who will replace him at this early stage.

But, of course, the prospects of an unpopular octogenarian at the head of the 2024 ticket means that some are doing so behind the scenes, anyway.

But interviews with 28 Democratic strategists and officials, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak more frankly, show that the assurances have not stopped the internal debate over whether Biden will appear on the ticket.

Some Democrats take a skeptical view of any public and private signals Biden and his team send about reelection, reasoning that there is an incentive for them to project interest in a second term, regardless of his true intent, to avoid weakening his standing. Another presidential bid, others worry, would involve a much more rigorous schedule than the relatively calm 2020 campaign, which was largely conducted remotely because of the covid-19 pandemic.

Even among those in close touch with Biden’s innermost circle, interpretations about his intentions vary. One Democrat involved in campaigns said they couldn’t think of a single person they had spoken to in the last month who considers the possibility of Biden running again to be a real one.

“I hear this question get asked every day,” said another Democratic veteran of recent presidential campaigns, about whether Biden will run for reelection. “No one ever asked that question about Barack Obama. No one ever asked that question about Donald Trump.”

Florida trial lawyer John Morgan, who was a top 2020 Biden donor, said he was unsure whether Biden would seek reelection.

“What is his health going to be in the next three years?” he wondered aloud. “All you have to do is look at the mortality tables in America to understand what I’m saying.”

Nobody needs to consult any tables. Biden is an old man and everyone, surely to include Biden himself, is well aware of that.

Still, the 2024 nomination is almost surely his if his health remains steady. And, if he steps aside, it’s by no means a sure thing that Kamala Harris gets it by default. Democrats aren’t Republicans and nobody cares about whose “turn” it is.

Biden has so far rejected then-president Donald Trump’s approach of declaring a reelection campaign in the first months in office, reasoning that such an announcement would waste money and wear out campaign donors, allies say. Biden is widely expected to wait until after the midterms to make a formal announcement.

Shortly after arriving in the White House, Biden shifted the assets of his presidential campaign to the Democratic National Committee, leaving his donor and volunteer lists to be managed by the national party. Since then, DNC leaders have been operating under the assumption that he will run again, choosing not to begin any planning for a contested primary, like debate preparations, which had started at this point in the 2020 cycle.

The party does plan to review the order of nominating states in the primary calendar, a threat to the first-in-the-nation position of the Iowa caucuses, but those efforts do not assume a contested Democratic fight.

Should Biden run and face a primary challenge in 2024, Democratic officials plan to side firmly with the incumbent, potentially frustrating challengers’ access to party data and resources, according to people familiar with the plans.Advertisement

In the meantime, the DNC has been working with Jen O’Malley Dillon, White House deputy chief of staff and Biden’s former campaign manager, to draft plans for major investments over the next year in important midterm election states that they believe will be battlegrounds for Biden in 2024.

Unlike Trump, Biden is a professional politician. The notion that we should already be planning primary debates three years from the next election and a year ahead of crucial Congressional midterms is bizarre but, alas, what our system has devolved into. The first Democratic debate for the 2020 cycle was June 26, 2019—which means we’re likely just seven months from the 2024 campaign kicking off in earnest and much less than that before candidates start showing up in New Hampshire diners. Hell, Chris Christie may be having pancakes in Nashua as I type.

We’re in the unique position of having both nomination fights essentially frozen right now. It’s natural for a first-term President’s own party nomination to default to him, of course, but Biden’s age puts that into doubt. Everyone assumes Donald Trump will seek the Republican nomination again but, until he makes it official, a lot of would-be candidates will keep their powder dry.

If Biden doesn’t run, though, things will get very interesting, indeed.

In recent weeks, Anita Dunn, who left the White House in August after a short stint as a senior adviser, has made calls to Democratic Party leaders and activists, assuring them Biden will run for reelection, according to people familiar with the calls.

From her perch at SKDK, a consulting firm she helps run, Dunn still serves as one of Biden’s most trusted and influential political advisers and is deeply involved in plotting out his political future. If Biden decides to run, Dunn is likely to be a key part of his team with O’Malley Dillon, allies say. Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, two of Biden’s top White House advisers, are also expected to be deeply involved in campaign strategy and messaging, they say.

Growing concerns about Democratic chances in next year’s midterm elections are widespread, after an electoral defeat in the Virigina governor’s race and an unexpectedly close race in New Jersey. But that concern less frequently extends to 2024, as party leaders point to the experiences of the last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who faced midterm wipeouts before easily winning reelection.

If Biden doesn’t run, some fear an open and potentially bruising primary campaign with no clear front-runner. Harris, seen at the start of the administration as a potential heir apparent, has stumbled in the eyes of many Democrats, opening the door to conversations in the party about the prospect of others leading the ticket if Biden steps aside. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is seen by some Democrats as another potential candidate from inside the administration.

Former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe spoke during his gubernatorial campaign about possibly running in 2024 if Biden steps aside, according to multiple people familiar with the conversations, but his defeat in this month’s election casts that plan into doubt. The names some liberals have floated as possible candidates if Biden steps down include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Others have pointed to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who is seen as the future of the liberal movement. In 2025, she would barely meet the constitutional requirement that presidents be at least 35 years old.

Absent a huge change in the landscape, though, we’re unlikely to see a nomination fight if Biden runs.

There is little sign at the moment of much appetite for a liberal challenge to Biden if he mounts another campaign. The president has won plaudits from liberal lawmakers this year for pursuing an ambitious domestic agenda.

“President Biden will enjoy strong support from many progressives when he runs for reelection. He will certainly have mine,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-chaired the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2020.

When it comes to the prospect of Biden drawing a liberal challenger, one Democratic congressional aide with knowledge of party dynamics wondered aloud who would want to spend their political capital taking on an incumbent and weakening him, like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) did to President Jimmy Carter in 1980. While such a move might be destructive, the aide said, some might be prepared to play that role.

“If this was a decision being made now, personally I would say that there’s plenty of work people can do without challenging the president,” said Larry Cohen, a close Sanders ally who chairs the board of a group aligned with the senator.

“If he’s not running, I think absolutely there’ll be progressives — at least one,” he added, without predicting who might run in an open race.

And, yes, Democrats are salivating at the chance to face Trump again, regardless.

The threat of a return of Trump to the White House has also divided Democrats. Biden ran for election to “restore the soul” of the country, but nearly a year into his term it is clear that the political threats he identified in the country, including Trump’s brand of politics, have not faded from the scene.

Trump, 75, has taken to hinting strongly that he intends another campaign, which has strengthened the rationale for some Democrats of having Biden back on the top of the ticket. Democrats expect Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and his continued false denials of the 2020 election result, to be a drag on his campaign in 2024.

Barry Goodman, a Democratic donor who served on Biden’s national finance committee for his 2020 presidential campaign, said many donors are “praying that Trump runs.”

“I think no matter who runs, a Democrat beats him,” he said of Trump. “At the end of the day, people are not going to put that despot in office one more time.”

While I very much hope that we somehow get a non-Trump alternative in 2023, I’m less sanguine than Goodman about the good judgment of the American people, especially as filtered through the Electoral College mechanism.

FILED UNDER: 2024 Election, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Sleeping Dog says:

    Hell, Chris Christie may be having pancakes in Nashua as I type.

    During stops at 3 different restaurants no doubt.

    LBJ’s withdrawal occurred 8 months before the general election, if Biden were to follow that timing in deciding not to run, the primary season would be a ~1/2 complete. He would need to announce any such decision at the latest in Sept, 23, to allow potential Dems to start campaigns.

    While I very much hope that we somehow get a non-Trump alternative in 2023, I’m less sanguine than Goodman about the good judgment of the American people, especially as filtered through the Electoral College mechanism.


  2. Kylopod says:

    Given the way the modern nomination process is scheduled, he’s going to have to make a decision one way or the other by 2023.

    One of the most important reasons for Dems sticking with him is the incumbency advantage. How much of an advantage is conferred by presidential incumbency is not totally clear. It’s definitely the case for offices below president like Senator; all we can say about presidents is that historically those who have run for reelection have, more often than not, won–but it’s based on a relatively small sample size where other factors might have been more crucial. If Biden were to bow out, it would be a fairly unprecedented situation in the modern age; despite LBJ and Truman, who both declined to run for what would have been their third term (albeit second full term), you have to go back to the 19th century to find examples of presidents being elected as non-incumbents to one full term and then not being the nominee next time around.

    But I’d also caution against writing him off based on present unpopularity. It’s quite common for presidents who suffer poor approval ratings during parts of their first term to go on to be reelected–it happened with Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. And the trajectory looks promising; it seems likely the pandemic will be mostly or entirely behind us by 2024, and the economy will have taken off. That I’ve long believed is a big part of the reason for why presidents are usually reelected, besides incumbency: a lot of presidents see an improvement in the country’s conditions during their first term, and get rewarded for it. The last three presidents to lose reelection prior to Trump–Bush Sr., Carter, and Hoover (I’m not counting Ford, who’s really in his own category)–entered office amid relatively good economic conditions, then saw the economy crater. (I’m oversimplifying based on very different types of economic problems, but in all these cases the presidents presided over a worsening of the economic conditions by the end of their term and suffered the electoral consequences.) Trump’s loss seems to fall into that category as well–though that gets tricky, as he received surprisingly good marks on the economy according to polls, and it was more the pandemic itself that appeared to do the most damage to his electoral prospects. Still, regardless of what happens in the midterms next year, Biden seems in as good a position for reelection as any president, and his age is really the only factor that’s giving anyone pause.

  3. James Joyner says:


    But I’d also caution against writing him off based on present unpopularity. It’s quite common for presidents who suffer poor approval ratings during parts of their first term to go on to be reelected–it happened with Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. And the trajectory looks promising; it seems likely the pandemic will be mostly or entirely behind us by 2024, and the economy will have taken off.

    Agreed all around. If he were 59, or even 69, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. We’d just assume he was running and, indeed, the heavy betting favorite to win the 2024 election.

  4. Jax says:

    Did you guys read Biden’s health report? I swear they’re trolling Trump and his “physician”. Why, there wasn’t even one mention of superior genetics or superman-like strength in all 6 of those pages! 😛

  5. Kylopod says:

    @James Joyner:

    If he were 59, or even 69, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.

    That’s actually an interesting point, because when Reagan was elected at age 69, that was at the time considered ridiculously old for a president, and after Repubs got crushed in the 1982 midterms there were pundits (such as David Broder) gleefully predicting he wouldn’t run again.

    But now, after we just saw a 70-year-old beat a 69-year-old for the presidency only to be beaten in the next cycle by a 78-year-old whose leading rival in the primary was even older, it seems like the acceptable age for presidents just keeps going up. At this rate we’ll soon be seeing someone in their 90s or 100s throwing their depends in the ring.

  6. CSK says:

    Yes, I was struck by the fact that no mention was made of Biden being the healthiest president ever to occupy the White House.

    Of course, you know that Trump dictated that letter to his personal physician Harold Bornstein, the letter in which it was claimed that all Trump’s test results were “positive.” Trump apparently was unaware that “positive” results for medical tests seldom indicate anything good.

  7. CSK says:

    I recall the late David Brudnoy ragging on Reagan for being ancient, and having to be wheeled into his inauguration.

  8. Kylopod says:


    Trump apparently was unaware that “positive” results for medical tests seldom indicate anything good.

    And like the 1917 flu, it’s an error he refuses to correct. In 2020 after taking a Covid test he said (yes, this is a real quote, not parody): “So this morning, I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning I tested negative. But that’s a way of saying it: Positively toward the negative.”

  9. CSK says:

    I’ve often thought that Trump picked up his tendency to babble from Sarah Palin after he saw how well word salad worked for her. Your auditors can read anything into it they like.

  10. john430 says:

    @James Joyner: His age has nothing to do with it. He was stupid but managed to get elected and since assuming office, he’s become senile while maintaining his hold on stupidity.

  11. Michael Reynolds says:

    Joe Biden is doing a very good job. With razor thin margins in Congress and a completely obstructive GOP, he nevertheless got a massive stimulus bill, followed by a massive infrastructure bill, and may even get most of his BBB passed – in just one year, despite the churlish Trump lack of co-operation including a violent attack and attempted coup.

    The stock market hit new records. Wages are up for the first time in forever. Inflation is an issue, but will fade as the supply line issues are sloooowly resolved. Unemployment down, millions raised up out of poverty, and oh, a slight bit of pandemic brought under control.

    In foreign policy he got us out of Afghanistan and forged stronger defense links with AUKUS and the Quad.

    All in one year.

    But he’s old. So, really, that’s the important thing. Not actual accomplishment but skin color. Sorry, I mean gender. Or maybe religion.

    You know, people who claim to be evidence-based and not afflicted by irrational biases, should perhaps spend more time on the fucking miracles this man has pulled off, and less on the fact that he’s old.

    I’m reminded of the probably apocryphal story of the time when folks went to Lincoln to complain about Ulysses Grant’s drinking problem. “I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”

    Tell me what flavor of Ensure Biden likes.

  12. Michael Reynolds says:

    So ‘stupid’ Joe Biden beat that transcendent, ramp-climbing genius, Trump. Person. . . woman. . . man. . .camera. . . TV. . . covfefe. . . hamberder. . .

    BTW, you saying that Biden was elected is heresy, don’t you know that? Bad cultie. Bad!

  13. Thomm says:

    @john430: but enough about Reagan.

  14. wr says:

    @Michael Reynolds: “You know, people who claim to be evidence-based and not afflicted by irrational biases, should perhaps spend more time on the fucking miracles this man has pulled off, and less on the fact that he’s old.”

    You know who else is really old? Nancy Pelosi is 81 and may go down as the most effectual House Speaker in history — and she’s still getting it done, even in ridiculous circumstances.

    Together these two old geezers are fighting like crazy to save this country, and so far they’re getting it done. Maybe if Chuck Schumer had another couple decades on him we’d be doing better in the Senate…

  15. Gustopher says:

    Given the ages of the likely 2024 nominees, it is possible — not likely, but possible — that both of them will die after getting the nomination but before the actual vote.

    We would then have America choosing between two corpses. I know it’s probably bad for the country, but I really want to see that.

  16. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @john430: Indeed. You’ve hit on the reason that Trump shouldn’t run. Having become senile while remaining stupid is a big, big, big disqualifier. You might even say bigly yuge.

  17. Kylopod says:


    I’ve often thought that Trump picked up his tendency to babble from Sarah Palin after he saw how well word salad worked for her.

    Could be. I have to say, though, that I cannot imagine even Palin making a statement like the one above. It’s not just a reflection of ignorance but of his bizarre narcissism, which goes way beyond standard narcissism. In the statement above, he seems to be aware that “testing negative” means a good result (almost certainly because he’d just been told that), he just doesn’t like the way the phrase sounds, so he feels compelled to explain that negative means positive. He’s so ridiculously insecure he can’t stand the thought that someone, somewhere, might interpret his test result as bad.

  18. Bnut says:

    @Michael Reynolds: It’s not an open thread, but I have wanted to say for at least a decade that you have a profound command of language that I am jealous of. We disagree on enough things but those are for another day. Nothing else to add, this will get lost in the sauce of the internet, but you have actually made me more aware of my own words and phrasing, especially as it concerns online interaction. Hat tip to you, and to this site and it’s commentators.

  19. Michael Reynolds says:

    Thanks, I really appreciate that. I wish I could say it was the result of hard work, but a few months back my little sister (she’s 50, so not really little), sent me some childhood mementos, among which was a, ‘what I did during summer vacation’ paper I’d written in first grade. Setting aside contextual knowledge I’ve managed to pick up since then, it was recognizably my cadence, my tone. The only real evidence of progress was that in the intervening 60 years I discovered the m-dash, which I overuse shamelessly.