this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
148 points (81.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2382 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] 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just fucking Google it man. It's been a repeated news story. If you're not aware of it you're not trying to know it.

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

OK, so you don't have an answer either, got it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

No, I just think you're being disingenuous so I have no interest in whatever name by name critique you're going to give for a list you already know 80%+ of the names for but are pretending doesn't exist.

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

I don't think a single person on your theoretical list is electable, if that's what you mean. But I would need you to be specific about who you think might be a viable alternative in order to have any useful discussion about them. I have no need to be disingenuous. You need to actually support your point of view with more than vague suggestions and hand-waving.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Look at the 2020 candidates, I'm sure a good number of them would run a campaign if Biden stepped down. The democratic establishment just needs to put their weight behind a candidate that people are willing to vote for like they did with Biden.

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

The democratic establishment just needs to put their weight behind a candidate that people are willing to vote for

Which would be who?

Also, that just is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence, as if it were that simple.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Buttigieg. Whitmer. Beshear. Pritzker. Newsome. Fucking Klobuchar or Warren. Literally anyone else that would announce their candidacy as soon as Biden got out of the way. It's the fucking democratic nomination, somebody out there wants it and given the chance to campaign would be able to beat Trump by miles. Half of them are starting at more or less equal odds with Trump even with NO campaigning whatsoever.

I'm not claiming to be clairvoyant but jesus have some imagination, a sense of object permanence. You're not hearing about them because they aren't challenging the incumbent president, not because they don't exist.

Edit: and yes, given a real primary, it is that simple.

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

It is not that simple, when we're talking about the national vote. Yes, another candidate could win the primary, but none of them have the kind of national presence to compete with Trump this close to the election. If they had been the candidate 2 years ago, maybe. Switching candidates this late will damage voter confidence, and will result in lower turnout, regardless of who the candidate is.

Imagination has nothing to do with it, this isn't a Disney movie.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's bullshit. 4 months is an eternity in election year time. Also, like I said, on account of them all clearing the bar of not being Trump, half of them are starting at more or less equal odds with Trump (and Biden) with NO campaigning whatsoever. Aside from that, Biden himself staying in the race is doing everything you're saying about the other candidates, all on his own.

The complication here; for any candidate; is that you have to offer something more than "not trump", campaign on that, and project confidence in defending your ideology and its allies. That is where voter confidence is fostered, not bowing down to some sunk cost fallacy. Biden is unable to perform on this in his current state. That is why his base comes down only to voters who both 1) don't have serious objections against Biden, which are dwindling, and 2) are informed on what trump may be capable of in a second term, of which the effort to increase this demographic is either completely absent or ineffectual.