this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1756 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2590 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 85 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they're always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.

  • Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.

  • Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can't get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.


Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it's too important:

Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.

There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.

Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:

Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."

Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"

Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"

Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"

Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"

Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"

Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."

Post-Debate Poll: "Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket"

Let's face reality:

To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."

So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:

We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.

  • Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
  • Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
  • There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.

Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Cause democrats are not a unified faction.

Democrats are basically 15 different political parties shoved under the same umbrella.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

15 factions = mostly AIPAC recipients.

That lobby group primarily funded by Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, but so are Republicans. That's the nature of a 2-party system and why it basically doesn't work.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Yes and no.

Fear and Hatred run the Republican Party, and unites them.

You have idiot outliers like the Log Cabin republicans who, for whatever fucked up reason (its money. its always money) chose to align themselves, and you'll have the occasional group break away briefly from the groupthink.

But when it comes to the polls, they are a pretty unified bloc.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes, beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting and ideological purity testing. Most Democrats are terrified of taking stances on wedge issues because any stance they take could break up a coalition that has all the durability of a Faberge egg. Republicans either don't have this problem, or they don't have it as bad. Despite having as many if not more factions than the Left, they all value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which allows them to come together every 4 years to form a unified voting bloc.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Keep in mind that kremlin still runs massive campaigns to make you think Biden will loose and is unable to run the country.

But he is not alone, this is not a monarchy, there is a full team behind him to make great things for the country.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

Of course the Kremlin, and Israel as well as other state actors are; but the obvious question then becomes — what is the Biden campaign actually doing to offset that effect? They are losing the battle and time is running out.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is all easily remedied. Biden just needs to put out a bounty on Trump's head. Totally legal move.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yep, totally official move of the president covered by immunity, if I'm reading the Court right!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

It's what Trump's lawyers specifically argued for. It's not a hypothetical or exaggeration at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Hell, just pull the trigger himself next debate. 100% legal and WOW did I just say that? Wow

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

While I understand what you mean, we also have to recognize that doing that would 100% give trump the election. Splitting the votes is not what we want to do.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

With all due respect if we're speaking in terms of certainty, I am 100% certain that Biden will give Trump the election—and I guarantee I have more evidence to support that statement than anyone does to the opposite conclusion. Staying this course is a disaster in slow-motion. The Titanic already hit the iceberg and now we're just sinking for 4 months straight. We either jump ship now, or we are going to lose, or we start gearing up for 2028 now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I completely disagree. While the debate felt disastrous, there is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.

The worst possible thing we can do right now is just jump ship this close to an election. Biden has one bad debate, and is fine the day after(another thing people conveniently love to ignore) and we're just supposed to restart. What if the new candidate does poorly at the second debate? We just pick another person again?

Biden beat Trump last time. Trump has only grown weaker and lost support, while Biden has been extremely successful. Everyone is upset about the debate performance, but it will not be even close to as impactful as people are convincing themselves it will be.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.

There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.

Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:

Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."

Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"

Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"

Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"

Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"

Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"

Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."

Let's face reality:

To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."

So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:

We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.

  • Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
  • Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
  • There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.

Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

TBF, It’s difficult to copy-paste MSNBC talking points about why Biden should stay in the race.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Trump has only grown weaker and lost support,

You understand that is so far removed from reality it might as well be a Fox headline.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

We are 100% giving Trump the election now on our present course. Biden is Hillary with worse numbers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Nate Silver of 538’s Model

Small clarification, Nate is no longer part of 538. He got laid off by ABC out of nowhere a year or two ago. He does his own thing, 538 has a different person at the helm for the model (Morris).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for that clarification. I was trying to reconcile the differences between the models and couldn't even find info in the Wikipedia article.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

No worries happy to help