It’s vitally important that Democrats now ask one question and one question only: Does Biden have the best chance of beating Trump, or is there someone else readily available who has a better chance?
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
robertreich.substack.com
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to
Most people engaged in politics have likely made up their mind, and anyone sufficiently disengaged will vote for the incumbent and be done with it. Biden is the incumbent, and they're not going to put forth a progressive.
Yeah
The race is not people deciding between Biden and Trump, but people on both sides who have made up their minds deciding whether or not to vote
Coincidentally, there is an enormous effort to paint voting as not worthwhile, and Biden as not good enough to be worthwhile bothering to vote for, aimed at left wing voters
Actual left-winger here. We've been saying the USA deserves better than Biden since before the 2020 election. Don't lump us in with the centrists, liberals, and moderates who've only just pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to notice that the incumbent is expected to lose.
There's no point in starting to panic now, all this has been inevitable since the DNC won the right to rig their own primary after the disaster that was the "Her Turn" campaign in 2016. Either y'all start calling your reps and demanding a better option on the ballot, or start making preparations for the fascism and civil unrest in our future.
Highly infuriated with the Dems over Biden in 2020 BUT he has turned out remarkably better than I ever thought. He now has a decent track record that makes him a good choice for another 4 years. On the other hand, we could go all dictator/fascist and lose all democracy. It comes down to Joe Biden who is now the one hope to save democracy.
Take the bus that gets you closest to your destination folks. In the meantime, get progressives into offices at local and state levels so they can move up to congressional levels.
Yes. Enormous efforts. “Genocide Joe” (the name) is part of that effort.
There is one in this comments section
Just one? Are they a faux-commie?
There are a lot more now; it started out as one
I was more worried about it until I realized Lemmy is the only place I'd heard anyone say Genocide Joe.
This is how effective psyops works.
Joe Biden is on track to win this election. Democrats are hell bent on snatching defeat from the mouth of victory.
Most people are just now waking up and paying attention while Biden's numbers are beginning to climb, in spite of his own party trying to sabotage him.
Anyone sufficiently disengaged with Biden might just NOT vote. And then Trump wins. Heres a better framing of the question. Could anyone generate more voter disengagement than Biden?
This is my worry too. They're not going to switch to trump, they'll either skip it or vote 3rd party.
Vote blue no matter who died quickly I guess.
Those people are still voting blue. The issue is getting everyone else on board. "Vote blue no matter who" can't carry the election entirely on its own and never could. 2020 was won on razor margins.
We need to get rid of the electoral college.
Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes. That it was "razor thin" is because of the electoral college.
Hillary lost to Trump despite winning the popular vote by 3 million because of the electoral college.
Gore lost because of Florida's electoral college (and all the fuckery there) despite winning the popular vote by 0.5million.
Small correction: after numerous recounts, it was proven decidedly that Gore had won in FL. However, the corrupt Supreme Court decided that since the media (Fox News) had already called the election for Dubya, that it would pose too much risk to our democratic process to overturn the results to the correct outcome.
This is most amusing given the context of Jan 6 and the corrupt court’s opinions on that matter, but here we are.
I strongly agree with you but that's not going to change the fact that we still have to contend with the EC this election cycle.
Edit: also gore didn't lose by either metric he just didn't stick it out for the recount
It would be enough to make an amendment so that the shape of electoral districts must be convex. This would make gerrymandering impossible.
How do you actually fit together exclusively convex shapes?
The corporate media would shred a real progressive but Biden is a lot more progressive leaning than I ever thought he would be.
Yeah, that's part of why I'm so suspicious of this massive "Biden needs to be replaced" push. We're not getting better policy out of it, and I seriously doubt it'll hurt Trump's odds at re-election, so why is everyone so keen on it at this stage? The time to replace him was months ago.
Exactly!
A travesty then, considering polling consistently shows progressives would wallop Trump, and the Dems claim that democracy is on the line this election. We could do so much better, but absolutely will not at the peril of capital.
We have narrow margins these days. Elections are decided by the undecided.
Who are these undecided voters? I haven't met one single undecided voter in the past 8 or more years. Maybe that's geography, but, jeez....
I feel that turnout is a far bigger factor.
It's pretty likely that a lot of those disengaged will not vote for Biden because they know he's too old
Biden is cooked. But there is so much fear/exhaustion/disgust with Trump we are still in the margin of error.
Imagine if the Democrats ran somebody that anybody was actually positively excited about.
But that is not how the DNC works.
In 2024, who would that be? Who would you be excited about?
Literally anyone under 50 years old
How about, oh I don’t know, 62 as your ceiling. 50 is young as heck in that environment.
I'd rather vote for Bernie or Newsom, personally.
I'm absolutely sick of mainstream media trying to hose the democratic candidate by suggesting the guaranteed-suicidal act of switching out the incumbent. They know it's failed every time. They still bring that up as news.
Find something else controversial to pin your ad revenue onto.
I'm sure that the mainstream coverage has been terrible—I avoid it these days for precisely that reason—but I don't think switching candidates is guaranteed electoral suicide. Plenty of smart and reasonable people are looking at Biden's performance—and his polling—and thinking we'd be better off with another nominee. Biden himself—setting aside the glaring problem of his advanced age and obviously reduced mental faculties—doesn't seem to grasp the dire consequences of a potential loss, based on his post-debate statements.
At this point, I (and lots of other people who are neither stupid nor crypto-fascists) think we'd be better off with another candidate. 4 months is tons of time in today's media environment.
Every other time was different. Trumps the guaranteed winner unless something changes.
Fucking rift
The only suicide pact is riding a senile candidate into the sunset while there's still a chance to get off the ride.
Are we talking about Trump now? Man I wish I could keep track of senile old bastards. Because my senile old bastards are yelling incoherent crap and not actually in the conversation.
As a matter of fact, we are talking about Trump. Any halfway decent 45-57 year old candidate will easily show Trump's advanced age and cognitive decline. But we don't get to run that race, because our candidate sounds like Grandpa did, the year before we put him in a nursing home.
This fucking narrative of bringing up trump every time someone questions Biden as a candidate is so fucking obnoxious.
We all know trump is senile and fucking insane. His voters are insane. We're talking about wether or not Biden is the best candidate to defeat him. Not everyone agrees with the narrative that swapping candidates right now is a bad idea.
You're obnoxious with not accepting that both things can exist simultaneously.
Unfortunately no. I wish. But all the wishing in the world doesn't change the position.
So what's the play, if Republicans aren't sane enough to remove their geriatric, why should we guarantee his victory by forcing out ours without his consent.
Well, I don't know that it's even possible to force Biden out without his consent. Certainly, it would be prohibitively difficult and contentious. Still, "If the GOP isn't doing it, why should we?" is a terrible argument, by any metric. The line of reasoning that says Biden should step aside, and support another nominee, looks like this:
It looks increasingly like he's going to lose.
If he loses, the country will—based on available evidence—likely descend into a pure kleptocracy, with fascistic and theocratic tendencies.
Based on his own statements, he doesn't fully grasp, or properly weigh, the consequences of losing this election. He'll feel fine about losing, as long as he does his best.
Given the above, maybe we'd be better off with someone else.
I'll stipulate that I was on the #binarychoice train myself until recently. The sad fact is, he's just that bad. And it's not too late to change course.
It's entirely likely Biden is trailing in polls because of the Democrats or others with ulterior motives reiterating that Biden should step aside that he is suffering in the polls.
Anyone who realizes the danger of Trump and project 2025 should be more than willing to say "I wish Biden would choose to step aside, but given the alternative I would vote for Biden's bloated corpse if I had to over Trump."
How about we listen to Bernie, or think a little harder, and show a little bit of solidarity for the only other current option. It's not about defending Biden despite his failings, it's about not holding him to standards his opponent doesn't have to adhere to.
If we need a candidate that isn't slowly losing their mental acuity to old age, Democrats AND Republicans need to come together and ask their respective geriatrics to resign together. Mutual adherence to the same standard, for the sake of the country.
The Republican geriatric is leading the Democrat in the polls. Why would they show him the door? If Democrats continue this Biden route Trump will just win.
Oh, I just thought we'd treat them the same. Ya know, instead of this classic Democrat ploy of attempting to ensure a defeat.
Why is it always Democrats that have to hold their politicians to a higher bar than Republicans. How about we have some solidarity for the best chance we have at not living in a fascist shithole for once?
Demcrats don't have morals or standards they're running a guy complicit in Genocide. What do you even mean dude??
That's another example of what I'm talking about. Why is it exactly we're paying attention to just Biden over that failing, when Trump is chomping at the bit to murder Palestinians, and both Democrats and Republicans alike are complicit in this genocide.
Fuck them both, but how about we not pave the way for the guy that also wants American citizens dead? Either they both mutually resign, or this is disingenuous bullshit.
No you're saying something entirely differing stop changing the subject.
Nope, same shit. Treat them the same. They're voting for their enthusiastic genocidal maniac that also wants you dead. The least you can do is vote for your only real choice, your apologetic genocidal maniac that doesnt want you dead. Wish it werent this way in our political system, but it is.
Do you want to continue this pointless conversation?
The Democrats have had YEARS to endorse anyone who was born after the Battle of the Bulge. With the election less than 4 months away, it is WAY too late to pick Biden's successor.
They need to come with a campaign message that shows ordinary people why Biden is a better choice than Trump, which should be the easiest g*ddamn thing in the world.
The Democrat "voters" haven't had a choice. It's the Democrat party that has pushed for Biden so hard and not allowed any opportunity for voters to choice someone else before now.
The democratic party wants Biden as president.
I suspect the majority of Democrat voters do not want him to run again.
“Democrat voters” “Democrat party”
I asked about this curious phrasing in this comment - what’s your take on it? Why do you think there might be a notable overlap between the users who are so fed up with the Democratic Party that they’re against Biden, and the users who even though they are obviously left wing people, use a traditionally conservative turn of phrase?
I happen to be in this thread due to bouncing around, so I'll explain anytime I use Democrat/Democratic/Republican:
I've had various liberals tell me Democrat was a form of dog whistle or sign I'm a right winger. One person started to dig into my mutual aid info trying to figure out if I was a Russian bot because I said "Democrat" instead of Democratic. I've tried to Democratic as a noun, and it felt grammatically incorrect. "I'm running as a Democatic." "The current majority in the house is with the Democratics."
Personally I think "Democrat" works for both candidate, party, and voter. "Biden is the Democrat's Nominee" vs "Biden is the Democratic nominee".
I have no idea if one is better than the other, but I tend to use one over the other when needed.
Well that sure is a totally normal human explanation.
Am I missing something here? I've had people say that I had to use that word otherwise I'm somehow on the payroll for the Republicans.
I do acknowledge that "Democrat" has been a form of... for lack of a better word, slur from Republican weirdos.
Serious explanation: "Democrat" as a noun is normal. "I'm running as a Democrat." "The current majority in the house in with the Democrats."
"Democratic" as an adjective is normal. "Democratic Party."
"Democrat" as an adjective is super weird. I think it was originally intended as a slur, but to me it just sounds weird, like bad grammar. "Democrat Party." Almost no one uses it that way except conservatives, because no one who doesn't consume conservative media would even run across it.
I found your explanation very bizarre because something like "I'm running as a Democratic" is something I've never heard in my life. If someone actually did tell you that "Democrat" is a bad thing even as a noun, there was some severe miscommunication on someone's part.
Apologies for being sarcastic about it
Edit: Welp, I looked over the history for the user I was talking to, and now I feel silly for thinking maybe they were actually confused somehow, and trying to help them. They’re just trying to obfuscate the original issue by introducing this nonsensical straw man of “I’m running as a Democratic,” I think, and I’m naive enough that I bought into it enough to give them a straight answer on it.
It doesn't help I'm running short on sleep, autistic, and just not in a good mood today before the assassination attempt.
But yeah, I personally go "Democratic Party" for the party but a member of Congress is a Democrat. I'm registered Democratic Party, I am a Democrat, yadda yadda.
Maybe, I just recall them claiming I was a fake American for doing it, and then saying my Polish friend was a form of Russian agent because he was born and lives in Poland. I can try to find the post but that was months ago.
Thank you for taking the time to explain it, Mozz.
Almost like.. now hear me out.. they don't want to win...
The establishment has been keeping his mental decline as secret as possible for quite some time now. They had the time and squandered it. Now the narrative of is he fit for the presidency is going to dominate any other factor to the election. If I'm being honest with myself, he's done. We're just currently salvaging as much as we can and push the never-trump narrative hard and pray.
It's annoying that most everyone can understand this, but the media keeps pretending like it's an open question.
Because they are pushing a narrative. They aren't being honest that no one is prepared to take over, no one else has been campaigning. Even if people wanted a replacement, there isn't one ready to take on the mantle.
They are intentionally sowing discord.
The answer is Bernie Sanders in 2020 and in 2016. Now? Probably nobody.
Bernie would still win. Just has to publicly recognize his old age while also showing that he's not senile like the other 2, agree to one term, pick a good young progressive VP, and start hammering away at progressive messaging. Probably outright tell the center Dems it's THEIR turn to hold their noses... Unless they want Trump to win.
Sanders is only one year older than Biden
But decades younger when it comes to soundness of mind
This would be a dream come true!
Harris is actually polling better than Biden against Trump. I know the Internet never forgets but the people do.
Honestly, we're basically just voting for Kamala when we vote for Biden.
Jill then Kamala
This is what I've been thinking too. Cognitive decline isn't necessarily fatal. Nancy Reagan used astrologers because she was lost and trying to keep up appearances.
Dunno what Jill/Joe will do. But if he was inclined to step down, I don't see home doing it for a few years.
If it's Parkinson's as alleged then there's no real reason to freak out, moreso because the cabinet does a substantial amount of the leg work anyway. Realistically so long as other leaders respect and understand him everything is fine and this is just more media doom fabrication.
The Parkinson’s thing was made up.
Yes, a Parkinson’s team visited the White House medical center, but not for Biden - the New York Post just published that out of all the people who work in the White House, it must have been Biden they were there to see, and the New York Times then republished the story because they are equivalent to the Post now apparently.
Who, other than Biden, would a Parkinson's team go to the White House to see, rather than the affected person going to see them?
ESPECIALLY given what they had to know was suspicious optics of the team going there. What sort of emergency would a random person at the white house have to have for a team to show up there despite the questions it would bring?
There's only a handful of people who would be at the white house, unfeasible to leave, and has their movements in public tracked at all times. Biden is on that short list.
I assumed, I'm just saying even if their claim is correct it's not that huge of a deal.
Yeah, makes sense. Just aiming to correct the record that yes, the claim is not just incorrect but New York Post-level propaganda, as far as I'm aware (which is an informative thing to keep in mind whenever you see someone repeating it).
i wish that was a guarantee; i would vote for biden in that case and i wouldn't have to hold my nose as tightly to do so.
If we split the votes between third party and democrat again, we're done for. We've already lost this race. Hard stuck democrats won't be convinced to vote third party. There won't be enough votes to win. Unfortunately, this is a democrat or fascist dictatorship vote.
Biden has the best chance of NOT beating Trump (I fear). He cannot change and as a known commodity will not generate new enthusiasm. Trump has generated all the outrage and rejection he is going to get. No new information is going to change that.
Someone else is an unknown. What happens if we switch is unknown. It may lose. But we are losing now.
But it could grab a LOT of press attention, generate enthusiasm, and break up the logjam of conservatism that runs national politics.
The whole point is that this is not a "dicey" or desperate thing to do when we are fighting for democracy and freedom. It is the ONLY thing to do when you are sure your current course loses.
We have to win.
It’s an interesting day when you get to identify a new talking point
Enthusiasm in this case would be turn out, actually getting butts out of seats to vote.
The existential threat that Trump poses no longer seems enough to motivate people to vote specfically against him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reduction in turn out by people who are not energized by Biden and aren't afraid of Trump has been a thing this whole time, it's not new.
Like literally the campaigns are targeting people to tell them not to vote at all, right? The fact that Biden is visibly spiralling gives those campaigns a lot of very effective ammunition imo.
Then again you got that x-ray shill vision.
Do you have numbers for this?
Like voter turnout numbers for Biden vs Trump or vs Democrats in earlier elections? All the numbers I have seen are in the opposite direction, which is understandable, because the voters unlike the media understand how catastrophically high the stakes are.
You see it referenced all the time as a bit of democratic dogma. There was even a meme about it that hit the top of all/active like a few days ago on Lemmy. I like how this article from April puts it:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/2024-turnout-apathy-biden-trump.html
It's not necessarily true, let me be clear, but it's an active assumption. Higher turnout benefits Democrats. A reduction in turnout due to voter apathy will directly effect the Democrats more than the Republicans. The current propoganda campaign are targeting Democratic voters apathy rather than trying to switch a "swing voter."
This election will probably be at least as high as 2016, and like I think you are referencing, every election since 2016 had basically had record turnout over the last.
Imo this election comes down to the number of voters who are motivated by abortion and worries about the supreme Court, which is middle aged to older people, high percentage women, reliable voters.
He's an interesting one that talks about the enthusiasm vs apathy of voters but doesn't specifically turnout, which is against my interpretation. I struggle to understand the relevance of it in this context:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/02/biden-trump-poll-post-debate/74263315007/
Imma stop you right there
Yes, I am aware that it is a popular narrative in the media and on Lemmy. My question was, do you have numbers for it?
Because my assertion that it isn’t actually true, and people are saying it anyway, and that the discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancy is an important fact.
Yeah I referenced two articles talking about it in multiple ways.
You acting like it's a new thing that's never been discussed was what I was referring too. It's absolutely a thing! That's a bit of goal post moving on your part to go from "wow I've never heard of this before!" To "I don't think that's status statically true."
https://lemmy.world/comment/11132168
Like correct me if I'm wrong, this is you right? Are you also going senile?
Mozz sees anti-liberal conspiracies everywhere he looks.
Ha. It was too complex for me to want to get into it, and I feel like I already said what I said about it... but honestly, it's sort of a fair question / point that I just dropped the conversation. Here's what happened:
So the NYMag article is full of some fascinating statistics, including the fact that voter engagement overall is going steadily up over the last few elections, and that Democratic likeliness to vote is way higher that Republican. It also includes a qualitative narrative about (slightly oversimplified) why that's bad news for Democrats or something. To me, the numbers it was citing didn't match the narrative.
But anyway I didn't want to play the game of going to some vague citations and digging through them for specific numbers to argue against, so that I have to do the work of both sides of the argument, and just kinda lost interest. If you or @AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world want to cite some statistics that might back up the media narrative that Democrats aren't "energized" in the sense of planning to vote in the election, whatever articles you want to draw them from, I'm good with that. If you or they want to send me some articles and pretend that you win if I don't feel like digging through them for those statistics (or alternatively if those articles just repeat the exact narrative that I'm acknowledging the existence of but not the factual backing for), I'm good with that too.
Ooooh thank you, every time someone tags me another angel loses their faith in the electoral system!
Considering the competition... I'd be willing to vote for Biden's dog.
Secret Service are cops, Commander bites them, therefore Commander says ACAB.
Commander 2024.
I thought it was Major? Does he have 2 dogs that bite people?
And yes. It’s not totally logical, but I kind of liked that Biden’s dog was biting people. I tend to assume that a lot of people who work in the White House are bad people, and if someone’s dog is going in and biting them then I’m gonna assume without evidence that it had a good reason.
Yeah, it's Major. From Biden worries the Secret Service may be loyal to Trump, according to a new book:
Cops framing people, cops killing dogs. I'm surprised they're not part of the official screening process along with the "you must score under this IQ level to be good at this job" filter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68366306
He literally has two dogs that love biting cops.
Or who cops love lying about being bit by.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68366306
Major was removed from the White House because it was apparently too stressful for a rescue. Commander is a puppy they raised in the WH but he apparently just loves the taste of bacon.
That or the agents getting bitten were abusing him to get him to bite. It's pretty unlikely that a puppy with a series of trainers wouldn't stop biting pigs.
This shit is getting so fucking old.
This shit is just because they're scared. They know Biden is going to curbstomp him come November. The racist rapist with 34 felonies is further up the ladder on mental decline anyways. I would vote for a steaming pile of Bidens dogs shit before I'd vote for anyone from the GOP.
That's not what we're seeing. Every time Biden tries to prove he can still think and shift the focus to Trump it fails and his polls get worse. He's behind by 6 points in PA now. The single state we really need to win.
Citation needed
Like a primary source, not just a news story claiming that this is happening or you doubling down about how it’s definitely happening
Okay. And here's a PA specific trend line. And just so you don't think I'm cherry picking, here's NYT and The Hill.
Polling isn't great for minutia but these trend lines are consistent with modern losses. The only thing I'm aware of that could drastically change this now is some focus groups saying they would stay home and not vote for Trump; or vote for RFK instead if Trump is sentenced to prison. That was supposed to be a known factor now but it got pushed to after the convention and after the ballots are locked. Are we really going to hang this election on one judge doing the right thing? or are we going to do what we have to in order to actually fight?
Yeah, polling is garbage in general but using it to see relative change is actually like the one thing that it's good for.
So, your assertion is that Biden is slipping lower and lower and lower in the polls the more he does. You picked the one state where he's slipped the most, to make that point. If I did the opposite, I could pick North Carolina, and say that gaining 1.7 points since before he did his press conference means he's killing it, and that press conference restored the confidence of the voters.
Probably a fairly accurate metric -- since you're going to ignore, for reasons which will be obvious to anyone who knows what the national polls show, the national polls -- could be to add up all the swing states and see how things have changed.
In the last week, Biden's gained an average of 0.56 points in all the swing states. If you saying him losing 0.4 points in PA since the press conference means he's losing ground, then I have demonstrated that zooming out to a non-cherry-picked-to-the-single-worst-state view shows the exact opposite happening.
Similarly, in the last month, Biden's lost an average of 0.8 percentage points in all the swing states averaged together. You could write an article about how even in the face of an objectively catastrophic debate performance, less than 1% of the voters abandoned him, pointing to the resilience of his support because most of the voters (unlike the media) are smart enough to realize that one bad debate doesn't all of a sudden mean that etc etc you get the idea. Oh, also, that means he's been gaining ground back since the debate, after dipping lower than 0.8 points initially, which kind of makes sense since the debate was such a horrifying fuck-up.
See? Primary sources are fun. That's all based on the Nate Silver chart of all swing states that you sent me.
I chose PA because it's the one state we really need to win. Without PA we basically need everything on offer and a tough pick up like GA. And the national polling is a great topline, but it doesn't predict the Electoral college very well.
And this isn't just about the press conference. It's about the debate, the spin afterwards, and the press conference. None of that has managed to bring his numbers back. And Nate Silver's actual prediction, (which I'm not sure if the page will show without a subscription) is bad for democrats. If you want to go with his analysis we should already have switched to Harris.
Oh! If you're saying that switching to Harris would be a good idea, that would be a totally logical and honestly not really that crazy thing that we could have talked about.
Some guy was coming in here talking about how every time Biden opens his mouth, his poll numbers get worse, and just kind of emphasizing this wild counterfactual in service of creating a narrative that didn't exist. I was talking with that guy. If you see him, tell him I looked at the polls you sent me and he's wrong.
His polls have gotten worse though. No amount of sarcasm escapes that.
Polls mean less than nothing. At this point they're just being manipulated to fit an agenda. Nobody voting red is going to vote blue, obviously even though he's a racist rapist with 34 felonies and caused an insurrection. Nobody voting blue would vote for him no matter how bad Biden is. It's turned into do you want a dictator or would you like to continue as a democracy. Come November when the left shows up to vote, (which they will, it's a very important election) Biden will win and the loser will lose again and hopefully be forgotten in a jail cell somewhere where he belongs.
Vote, volunteer to give rides for people that need them to be able to cast their vote!
You think there's some kind of conspiracy across multiple universities, research organizations and news organizations? The military can't keep a private from telling their Chinese AI girlfriend about the secret mission they're going on but you think independent professionals and professors are somehow all in on something?
The left has been very vocal about not liking Biden and the middle doesn't think he can even do the job. The only people showing up to vote are Biden's base and they aren't enough.
Come talk to me in November.
No. In fact the universities and research organizations have generally been publishing polls showing basically no change in Biden’s numbers. You would know that, if you’d citationed.
In media, yes, although it’s more a case of groupthink, laziness, and vulnerability to manipulation than it is any grand conspiracy.
Check my response to your other post for links. It takes a little time to get them together because I'm not that organized of a person.
Readily available for repubes to start yelling “democrats in disarray” “both sides are the same”. Hell, repubes don’t even have to do it. The mainstream media is already doing their bidding.
It's crazy to see the difference in tone CNN and other major new outlets have adopted when talking about Biden, vs. how they talk about Trump.
With Biden it's "What a national embarrassment, no way this man can lead in his current state, voting for him is nearly elder abuse and you should be ashamed of yourself."
With Trump it's "jeez get a load of this guy lol. He's just so silly with the things he says, who would take him seriously about the crazy stuff? Might be worth a vote?"
The press is stupid
Political people, mostly on the conservative side, figured out long ago that if you just pushed hard a particular framing and narrative, the majority of the American political press would just kind of go with it as opposed to upset the herd by presenting a different framing. Once you’ve set the boulder rolling in one direction, you can just kind of let it go and it’ll follow the same path on its own. And they practiced the technique until they got really good at it.
A fun exercise to see it is to read an article, but flip the party and subject of the article to the opposite side. Like some gaffe that Biden made, say that Trump made it, or vice versa. The tone will seem wildly off kilter in this really unusual way.
They are pushing hard with a heavy sprinkling of whataboutism and fearmongering 24 hours a day, which they learned from the successful fascists. It is an approach that works well with for profit news, even the ones they don't own.
Trying to push just as hard for something positive wouldn't be as successful.
It’s because if they challenge the narrative at all, they get cut out of coverage in the future. Then the other for-profit media outlets have coverage they won’t have access to and they’ll lose viewership.
It’s why something like the BBC can push candidates like they can, because if you cut out the BBC then you’ve cut out any televised national coverage in the UK. Here if ABC decides to really go after a narrative then Republicans still have Fox, NBC, CBS, etc
That’s all I’m saying. That’s all anyone is saying.
Take ego and hubris out of the equation. Who has the absolute best chance of beating the fascists?
That’s it. That’s the only question that really matters right now in the context of this upcoming election, if we want to stop Trump.
yeah except democrats were so sure it was shillary, and then REFUSED the far better candidate in Bernie Sanders. Even if they came out tomorrow with someone, told everybody it was a lock, and the entire DNC fell in behind them, I still wouldn't trust them to get it right.
But would you vote for them? No names, just generic Democrat.
course I would. But I'm uniquely aware of how catastrophically dangerous a second drumpf term would be. The average american may believe that we could survive a second term, much like we did the first, but that ignores the very real plans being enacted by drumpfs handlers. The US pulling out of NATO, or stopping aid to the Ukraine (which would 100% happen under drumpf) would mean WWIII, which is precisely what these right wing think tanks want. They see the expansion of US power after WWII as something worth repeating, even if it means having to go through a third world war. The rich and powerful always think they'll be insulated from the war, which is why they aren't as scared for it. They look at it much like the stock market, they're trying to destroy the corporation of America so that they can buy up for cheap what's left over.
Well good news. You're not the only one. Generic Democrat beats Trump by something like 8 points in polling versus Biden losing to Trump.
It's not the best argument; Generic Democrat has no personal baggage. I'm in favor of finding a better nominee (maybe even partially due to your advocacy), but unfortunately we can't run Generic Democrat.
Yeah but if we let perfect be the enemy of the good then we're going to ride this thing into the dirt.
I'm so sick of these articles and headlines about how Biden should step down.
DNC had years to figure this shit out and back another candidate, but instead we had seemingly rushed primaries with no real challengers. At this point with less than four months until the actual election, who the hell do they expect will be a better choice? Because nobody has stepped up to the plate, and for all the talk of how Biden should step down, there's been no discussion of who should step up in his place.
Just fucking back the man, unify, and rally to convince people to get out and vote. Best case scenario, we get a functional Biden, who is known for his work ethic and general attitude of doing the job without platitudes or bullshit. Alternative not so good cases are we get a diminished Biden who isn't effective at the job, but also isn't a fucking fascist, or Biden dies of natural causes at some point and we get a partial term of Harris as president.
Oh sure, "now" they have to ask it but a year ago everything was hunky dory. Get fucked
right wingers and the corporate media absolute hate that Biden is one of the most pro worker, pro union, and pro labor presidents in recent history and will do anything to try and get back trump
I think that’s a lot of the underlying reason
Like yes, we may get an open fascist who literally will destroy the country, and that won’t be good for our profits either. But fuck you, that’s why. You raise corporate tax, we’re gonna start some shit with you; that’s where it begins and ends.
And since no laws actually apply to the billionaire class, they have no existential fear of a Trump administration. Anti immigrant fervor? LGBTQ persecution? Oppression of women? Violent racism? “They won’t affect ME, or anybody I care about, but higher taxes and labor laws might mean I can only buy a thousand foot yacht every month, rather than the 1100 foot one I deserve.”
Yeah. And that is a foolish delusion, because it will, of course, affect them. They may get lucky and be able to turn the chaos into becoming absurdly wealthy (more so than they are) some way. But more likely is that they’ll have to scramble to stay safe and profitable, and they are already soft and slow to react after years and years of soft living in this safe society, so they might find it pretty hard. The fall and privatization of the U.S.S.R. might not be a bad example to look at for a similar example to how things might play out in a Trump unleashed chaos world.
They have the money to just fuck off somewhere better tho
I'm not at all American and I honestly don't understand the American voting system but I will say this: basically anyone would do the job instead of Biden, it's shocking that someone in his state is allowed to run for presidency again.
Old people are easier for lobbyists to manipulate. The US has a lot of old politicians for the same reason scammers target the elderly.
That may be a factor, but most of the old farts in office have been there for decades. They weren't 70+ years old when they first got elected.
In the boomers case and older, even when they were young, they were easier to manipulate than the young people of the present. We not only know more now, everything we've learned is information literally at our fingertips on the internet.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted, you're right
The fear of Trump has cause many to overlook and burry all negative stories in general because people assume acknowledging faults is going to lead to Trump and overlooking it will somehow help Biden.
So how do we answer this question in an analytical way that can be agreed upon by most or all factions in the party? Because right now I just see lots of people angrily shouting their totally unfounded opinions and assuming everyone who disagrees with them is insane or a shill. This type of dialogue is extremely unhelpful.
I will say that I do not know if Biden is the best person to beat Trump or if Harris is or if it’s someone else. But I think having the most unpopular incumbent in history who is struggling to mount a campaign makes it a reasonable question to ask.
If anyone has well-reasoned thoughts on this I welcome them but I really haven’t seen any serious attempt to answer this question yet. Perhaps it is unanswerable.
american culture frowns down upon talking about politics publicly so americans generally lack the necessary practice in engaging in meaningful political discourse; you'll have to wait for a generations long culture shift to get your answer.
Of recent time. I remember decades ago sitting around and having polite, but argumentative discussions with people accross the political spectrum. It was really engaging when people still talked and thought about policy... instead of just people.
Yeah cause it's a great idea to change candidates 4 fucking months before the election.
There have been plenty of presidential elections where the candidate wasn't known until the nominating convention in August. This whole "12 month election cycle" bullshit is a pretty new phenomenon.
Anyway, the absolute media shitstorm that will ensue if Biden is dropped from the ticket will more than make up for the late start to a new candidate's campaign — the new DNC nominee will dominate the news cycle for weeks without having to spend a dime.
That exactly the point. We're in the age of the 24 hour news cycle were attentions spans have been grounded into dust. For a campaign to win there needs to be nonstop engagement. Half of lemmy forgot all the actual good stuff Biden has done in his 4 years. Even the stuff they wanted and legitimately benefitted from. The fuck is a new candidate going to do in 3 or 4 months?
Considering that Biden has done fuck-all to evangelize the good things his administration has done, anything a new candidate does to campaign in the next few months would be an improvement.
It’s not the president’s job to evangelize his accomplishments. It’s his job to run the fucking country, and at that he did great.
It’s the media’s job to report the reality of what’s going on in government so people can make good decisions, by connecting the job performance to the public perception. At that, they have done an openly corrupt, dishonest, lazy, etc etc you get the idea they shit the bed way worse than Biden did at the debate, and they do it every day.
There is a reality of campaigning, and a legitimate sense in which the DNC and Democratic consultant driven campaign apparatus is awful and the GOP’s is pretty skilled. Honestly, their masterful corruption of the media is how we got to the state we’re in.
But hitting the fastest runner in the competition in the legs with a bat, and then saying it’s his job to win the race, after all, is kind of missing the point. Like yes you are right but there is an additional factor you are neglecting.
The media is actively hostile, an opponent, because trump means clicks and money. So it does fall on the campaign to...campaign, even more. A new candidate can only be an improvement on that front
Because attention spans are short, we should need even less time to position a candidate. Voters aren't going to remember 4 months ago in November, right?
Normally I’d agree, but this ain’t your average election. A Dem candidate younger than Biden could be out there pounding the campaign trail day after day, generating enthusiasm in a way that Biden now seems physically incapable of doing.
Plus, a large number of voters hate both candidates. A shiny new candidate would be exciting and unprecedented, and would get boatloads of attention. They could easily close the gap with Trump, despite what the polls say.
This only works if Kamala declines the nomination at the convention. Otherwise leapfrogging her to get someone shiny and new would anger too many voters.
A shiny new candidate would split the Democrat vote guaranteeing Trump the win.
A new candidate will be mince meat from Republican attacks. Right now, there's limits on what they can say that Biden will do during his term. "He will take away all guns!" But Biden was already president and didn't do that, "he's going to force everyone to buy EV cars!" Again, he's already president and didn't do that already, etc. A new candidate will get accused of wanting to do all these things, and Republicans/independents will be more likely to believe them than those attacks being attributed to Biden.
It's a bad idea not to when it'd be a guaranteed loss
4 months is a massive amount of time. Other counties have their entire election cycle in half the time. America’s 1-2 year long presidential election cycle is so weird.
well its a great idea for your opponent to push forward.
Isn't super Tuesday when it usually becomes pretty clear in March, but the convention is where it's known. So best case scenario a few months ago. Worst case the convention. 12 months is absurd and not possible, unless, your party has decided who will win the primaries before anyone even votes.... and they totally don't do that... ever...
People that are loud about it now are loud because they have been screaming about it for the last 5 years and suddenly the DNC is all surprised like they didn't already know. We know we're fucked. But they fucked it. A sentient human will talk a lot of people that are disgusted with the two options to maybe show up and vote. A lot of people just want to watch it burn.
We can't change candidates because no one has voted on shit. It would split the party (which I am ok with other than the Trump/end of democracy problem). The DNC did this.
All because they were afraid that we would actually get Bernie. They basically begged Biden to run, because no one else would have beaten Bernie in the primary.
nearly all elections were like this until 2016; nobody was sure who the candidate was until the convention.
The optics are shot, people have already heard dem leaders having meetings about his capabilities. The situations only going to deteriorate in the coming months as things are.
And yet, I and many others will vote for him. We cannot let Trump anywhere near the presidency. I honestly would vote for a dead frog over Trump. The staff that's in place is competent, have done well for us, and I believe they'll hold things together until Kamala takes over.
Of course we would all rather a much younger, charismatic candidate, but it is what it is.
At this point, I truly believe most Democratic voters understand the assignment.
A rabid chimp wielding a machete would honestly be safer than another Trump presidency.
We know you'll vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name. Being a "safe" voter means the party doesn't have to try and earn your vote. Thus, you can be safely ignored, because appealing to you won't raise enthusiasm among undecided voters.
What's amusing to me is how the DNC always fails to apply this logic strategically. If they've got such huge masses ready to vote blue no matter who, then what's the harm in switching to another candidate?
Yeah, it's always a puzzle whether the DNC is being malicious or just stupid.
Wasnt really a statement of what you should do, just a prediction. If biden stays in the race i think Trump becomes president
Unfortunately, elections are not decided by people like us.
What about independents? I think you need their votes to win, too.
I think independents understand the great danger Trump poses and are going to hopefully vote for the person most likely to defeat him, and at this point that is Biden.
You overestimate independents' intelligence and engagement
I still haven't seen anyone put forth a candidate worth throwing away Bidens incumbentcy advantage, Harris isn't a great option
You’ve identified the issue yes
Kamala Harris is the only option that polls better than Biden, and she’s not a great option, no. I wish there were one that seemed like “oh that is the answer yes.”
I think - this is a completely serious statement - that Jon Stewart would be a great option. But because our political system is broken, we can’t do that.
Jon Stewart would absolutely win if he went for it, but he doesn't want to. It sucks.
You have to read the entire section of the poll, not just the "supports candidate" part. The don't know/undecided part grows in lockstep with the loss of support. While Trump maintains right around 40%. Which is a common phenomenon when people don't recognize the candidate's name.
A four month campaign is more than long enough to fix the name recognition problem and court the independents. The really important thing is generic Democrat beats Trump every time. That highly suggests Biden is hurting the campaign, not helping it and any recognizable Democrat will win this thing.
Its really not, because you gotta figure for hiring campaign staff, all the politicing behind the scenes, it SHOULD be as simple as run someone now and work that out later. But the Dems in charge think they'll sruvive a second Traitor Trump term just as strongly and incorrectly as moderate voters
Well some of them at any rate. Is it enough to force us to hold on to Biden? We don't know. We can say with certainty that the replacements are there and ready though. If we don't switch then that's going to be the story in 50 years when they study American history.
Gretchen Whitmer.
George Clooney
We're too trapped in a bubble if we think the white, non college-educated suburban housewives in Pennsylvania and Ohio that ultimately swung the 2020 election to Biden would vote for A) A woman B) A black woman C) A black woman who's name sounds like "Obama".
This is a bad place. And not most people, but most of the people who vote regularly, are just bad, broken, selfish, frightened people.
Then get Newsom to run. He checks all the traditional boxes.
Theyll vote down a Californian even faster, "MUH DRUG NEEDLES ON THE STREET, MILLION COST OF LIVING", those will be the headlines for the four months before they turn into Magat pravda
Are we really worried about what Trump's base thinks? I think if Newsom did even a modicum of campaigning he'd pull ahead. The "commie state" stuff only goes so far once he's on the news talking about mainstream liberal stuff.
Say what you will about whether he's able to beat the Mango Mussolini or not, but THAT has to be the biggest faux pas I've ever seen!
Had me laughing so hard I startled my cat 😂
i remember being incensed as a young man from seeing & hearing his fiery & well spoken anti-gay, anti-feminist, pro-segregationist views and seeing him morph into a doddering old man at the debate and plus this somehow make feel sorry for him now.
A great concern that not many talk about is, that he won't be getting any better during the next 4 years. Even if he wasn't old now, he'd become older while sitting in office, if he somehow managed to win.
No, because Harris does not poll well and leapfrogging her to send Newsom would anger lots of people.
Leapfrogging? This isn't some schoolyard game of "it's my turn next". If there's a better candidate who cares who it "leapfrogs".
I don't think it would anger as many as it would help to have a better candidate
The tradition of succession is still strong in American politics, it's how Biden got the nom.
Look to Hilary and Bernie for a very similar parallel, its tribal but it's true
This is an argument for revolution, not for keeping Biden on the ticket.
Hah, you think Americans will revolt? Oh sweet summer child
People wouldn't be mad about the "leapfrogging", nobody gives a shit about that. People don't like Newsom though, I would be shocked if an SF based politician won a presidency.
Even worse, an SF based fiscally conservative corpo-Democrat. This is the same guy who suddenly changed his mind and didn't pass universal healthcare in California when he supported it beforehand (guess being bankrolled by healthcare companies made it harder to sign), I don't think anyone would want that. Also he's just an unlikeable piece of shit, he's what pops into the average person's mind when they think "the elite". His shitty economics seem to have fucked up California quite a bit and he's barely any better than the average libertarian (but unlike the Libertarian party candidate, at least he doesn't want to abolish the Department of Education and all government healthcare, but that's a pretty low bar)
I will commit seppuku before I vote for Newsom. Disclaimer: I am not Californian
I am Californian and yeah he sucks. He bailed out the local gas and electric companies after they burned down half the state.
Cool, now WSJ is publishing a pro-Biden op-ed, comparing him to....The Blessed Saint Ronnie Raygun (PBUH).
JFC, they really want to have donnie run against Biden...
Don't forget, he was elected by boomers in the first place. If they don't have their candidate, they might not vote.
The majority of people really like and prefer Joe Biden's policies. They didn't vote him in office to debate. Democrats have no spine and are quit willing to be lead to the loser's corner.
As has always been 🥲
You forget, as as everyone always seems to, THE VOTERS ARE STUPID
unfortunately, debates matter to a lot of people and may be the only time some people really pay attention to politics
Most people only bother to begin paying attention after the conventions.
Not "Democrats". One specific Democrat needs to ask that question.
Just play his own appearances back to him until he’s shouting at himself on screen like the rest of us
The party committee can meet and change the rules. Ironically it was SCOTUS that made this possible.
Even if you could change the rules, the delegates were decided by the Biden campaign. Would be hard to convince more than half of them to change their vote without Biden himself asking them to.
You're forgetting all the super delegates. Also, those delegates were pledged months ago. Freed to vote in a brokered convention you might see some change.
Super Delegates don't get to vote in the first ballot anymore, they changed the rules because the Bernie Bros were mad Hillary got a lot of Super Delegates. They didn't want the Super Delegates to be able to do...exactly what you're proposing.
Actually...I guess if we're talking rule changes I guess you COULD change it so Super Delegates voted on the first ballot again, and hope enough Super Delegates were on board, but what an insane crisis of legitimacy that would cause. Like I guess you could change the rules so Nancy Pelosi picks the next Democratic nominee but that's not a good way to make the voters feel heard.
If it was up to me I'd be like, everyone is going to learn what a caucus is and we're having a national caucus day for Democrats on August 1, at your local party office parking lot. But I'm not in charge. That's really just a way to show how we can solve this while listening to voters.
I think most people are voting D or R at this point.
I don't think that those who are not voting that way are more likely to vote for a brown woman than an old white man.
I think Kamala is the only real option, as I don't think it is above board to transfer the campaign finances off to some other candidate, to get the word out etc.
Lastly, I think a last minute change (while would Ideally be my choice) would ultimately be challenged legally by the Republicans and it's ultimately go to the SCOTUS...
It is frustrating and sad but Biden might be our best bet... Unless there's finances available for any possible new candidacy. But again that switch will create legal challenges.
There's less barriers than you may think. For one the nominating convention hasn't happened yet. The only state that was a potential barrier was Ohio, and they made a change so the final candidate can be submitted after there too. If dems nominate someone else at their convention, that person should be able to be on all the ballots nationwide. The convention is where the candidate is actually picked, not the caucuses or primaries.
The money currently in the campaign itself could be transitioned into a PAC. And yes while technically PACS aren't supposed to coordinate with candidates, we all know that line barely even exists anymore. And some big donors are apparently already building up new funds to be given to a new candidate if that occurs.
I'm not certain a new candidate will guarantee a win, but I don't think a politician known for making gaffes for decades now is going to suddenly stop in their old age. And every single misstep will create another flurry of speculation about his cognition, and suck all the air out of the room for the rest of the race. I don't personally care, if Biden is elected and can't cut it anymore cognitively than Harris takes over and it's still miles better than Trump.
But I worry all of this will just drive down engagement and turn out and make things harder and harder until election day. And it's clearly been demonstrated no matter how horrific trump acts or what terrible policies he promises or how badly his policies will hurt his own supporters, they aren't budging no matter what. If a majority of democrats and that slim amount of independent and undecided voters want Biden out of the race based on all of this, I think the best chance to make sure they show up for the polls on election day and vote blue is that they're given what they want.
Right, the PAC thing then gets brought to the SCOTUS, and do we wanna risk that?
If George Clooney gets a few billionare buddies to chip in 50M a head to put someone to the front it could work financially, but then who are we even getting?
The situation is dire. I don't know that there's a clear solution. All I know is how I'll vote regardless.
I'm unclear why you think the PAC thing would go to scotus. That's a routine thing. Like who would be sueing exactly, for what reason, and with what standing?
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/s-happens-candidates-leftover-money-rcna57340
The money could be donated to a PAC or a political party, so it could also all be given to the DNC. It just can't be used for personal use. It could get a little thorny if someone besides Harris was picked though and Harris didn't want the money to go to help democrats for some reason, but that seems unlikely.
And yes I'm voting for whatever Democrat is on the ballet, I just want whatever gives the best chance of keeping Trump out and helping down ballot democrats in congress who will be needed for any chance of enacting any major changes.
Isn't it already too late? Each state has laws about when a candidate needs to be "entered" so they can get their ballot/mail in/military ballots ready in time. I believe the earliest ballots are going out in like 2 weeks.
This would just set us up for every red state to push lawsuits and would recreate the absolute insanity that was 2020 election, except now these red states have installed "yes men" that will certify/refuse to certify whatever they are told to.
No. The convention is the end of the road. Ohio is an exception and maybe Alabama but I don't think they'd be able to get away with keep the dem off the ballot completely.
The election is in ~3 months. Yes. Next question.
He's much more unpopular than any previous president that won reelection, he's literally unqualified for the job, he's in a weaker position than when he BARELY won the first time and he's refusing to change course on the main source of discontent, his active and ongoing participation in a genocide and other war crimes committed daily.
No.
Next question: Will he be replaced by one of the 50 other Democrats who could beat Donald Trump (by his own estimate) before it's too late?
I hope so, but probably not.
Voters simply don't care about Gaza anywhere near as much as they care about literally everything else:
https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/240415_Harvard_IOP_Spring_2024_Topline_Final.pdf
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24564257/240126-nbc-april-2024-poll-4-21-2024-release.pdf
https://news.gallup.com/poll/644570/immigration-named-top-problem-third-straight-month.aspx
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-disapprove-biden-handling-israel-hamas-war-poll-2023-12-10/
It shows up in poll after poll after poll. With the exception of chronically online lemmings and less than 10% of Democratic voters, nobody else really cares.
Even for the folks who are outraged by what's happening in Gaza, letting trump win isn't going to make the situation any better, and will likely make it significantly worse.
Well that's a damning indictment of the American people if I ever saw one!
Yeah, it's just the systematic slaughter of mostly defenseless civilians, specifically targeting aid workers, health workers and journalists, and also tens of thousands of children!
Just flagrant daily crimes against humanity, nothing you'd care about if you weren't a chronically online Lemming! /s
You're very much on the wrong side of history if you are indifferent to the many war crimes of Israel as well as the contributions of the US and other Western countries making it possible for them to continue in perpetuity.
Yeah none of that changes the fact that voters don't care. Sorry people have different priorities than you, it seems like it really bothers you.
Yeah, it actually DOES bother me that some people don't care about constant atrocities committed on helpless innocents. I'm kooky like that!
I wouldn't think that Donald Trump levels of casual indifference towards the mass murder and systemic torture of fellow human beings would be the norm amongst Democratic voters, but I guess it either is or there's something wrong with the methodology of the statistics you so gleefully present as redemptive of your Dear Leader..
Feel free to point out repeated, systemic flaws that might lead to that kind of consistent result. If not, I'll just assume it's because you simply can't wrap your mind around the fact that voters have different priorities than you. Truth hurts.
There's different priorities and then there's a near-total disregard for the lives and well-being of fellow humans.
There's disagreement on whether economic or social issues are more important. Whether foreign policy is important or only domestic issues really matter. Tons of room for legitimate disagreement there.
And then there's being indifferent to some of the worst atrocities humans have ever submitted other humans to being perpetrated in your name using weapons paid for by your tax dollars and political cover by the politicians you have chosen to represent you.
If that doesn't bother you, WHAT fucking does?
I've never said what does and doesn't bother me. This conversation isn't about me at all. It's about voters, and about the fact that you mischaracterized their "main source of discontent". I showed evidence that it is, in fact, not their main source of discontent. It barely even registers, your personal outrage notwithstanding.
Voters do not care. Full stop. There are a number of likely reasons for that, but it's not terribly complicated.
Yeah, I often protest in the streets and on campuses, risking arrest or much worse from cops and Zionist agitators based on "not caring" 🙄
I'm not a statistician, so I'm gonna let someone else locate the smoking gun, but those statistics CANNOT reflect actual reality. Especially since at least the first one suggests that people aren't really That worried about CLIMATE CHANGE either.
I'm thinking maybe sampling bias or asking the questions in Norwegian? 🤔
I linked the polls directly. Feel free to check the language of the questions out yourself. Looks like English to me.
Sure, it LOOKS like English, but they didn't write the questions phonetically, so some of them might be asked with a Norwegian accent so impenetrable as to be incomprehensible!
How big were the win margins in 2020 again?
How is that in any way relevant to my correction about "the main source of discontent"?
You said this:
[Links]
Yes I did. Your powers of observation are uncanny.
So again, what does the 2020 margin of victory have to do with the purported "main source of discontent" among voters, which isn't borne out by polling data?
I didn't say it was the main source of discontent. I just think that being able to win the election is the most important thing. It doesn't have to be the "main" source to cause the problem we're all talking about.
I didn't say you did. I corrected someone else, and you responded to me. So again, how is your response relevant to me correcting someone else's factual inaccuracy?
I obviously mistook this as a conversation about the upcoming election and Biden's chances, but I can see now that you are purely interested in correcting someone about this one thing, and not about whether or not that has an important impact on Biden's chances.
Yes wow you're right it isn't the "main" source of the discontent. Congratulations.
Yes, I corrected someone's factual inaccuracy. If you want to respond to things that other people are currently talking about, be my guest.
I was talking about the thing the person you responded to was talking about.
Anyway, this was oddly hostile so I'm out.
The Democrats can't afford to lose even half of that 10%.
I didn't say they could. I was correcting someone who indicated Gaza is "the main source of discontent" among voters, when in fact polling shows it is not. I didn't say literally anything about the election or who's likely to win, or what that discontent might mean in the future.
You asked how the electoral margins were relevant to the topic. I just answered your question.
Quibble about which issue is more important all you want, the DNC is already underwater on voter enthusiasm regardless.
I'm not "quibbling". I'm pointing to polling evidence that directly contradicts a claim the other user made. I didn't say a damn thing about the DNC, or voter enthusiasm, or electoral prospects, or any of that information. I literally just showed polls of priority issues for relative importance. That's the end of my point, so please don't respond to an argument I didn't make.
Your disagreement was not one of kind, but of scale. You're choosing to focus on polls of issue priority as if that matters when we both agree that the party can't afford to lose any support regardless of the issue.
I didn't say anything about whether the party can or cannot afford to lose support.
Precisely.
Did you not pay attention to Frances election? Much shorter with much better outcomes. Maybe the year long election cycle is the problem driving turnout down in the US, which benefits republicans.
In the UK there are 5 independent MP's who beat both mainstream parties that won just by advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Now if anyone wants to save Democracy it might be time to sack Genocide Joe and run a candidate that actually has popular policies. Because Biden will not beat Trump and that was even before he started adding Geriatric to his list of adjectives.
The irony is that if people don't vote for Biden because of his Israel policy (which has been the policy of every president before him), then Trump will win and then Gaza will be finished.
Like a big graveyard
And then the Israelis will move in, presumably, and the Palestinians will become a scattered-handful ethnicity with no country at all, like the Kurds. Or like the Jews used to be.
But then we can rebuild Temple Mount and establish The Third Temple at al-Aqsa mosque and welcome The Messiah back!
Gaza is already finished what do you mean?
It might be impossible to understand for Biden supporters but some people actually have functional red lines. And Biden crossed them.
Rewarding Biden for this behavior is far worse in the long term than the slightly more evil Trump could be. Thought I doubt Trump would actually be worse on Palestine.
So you would rather enable a Gaza at home over your morals. Great job. OUTCOMES MATTER
When you read the "first they came for" poem, what do you think it means?
A vote for Biden is a vote for Genocide and Fascism to come to the USA in the future.
What's better, fascism "sometime in the future", or fascism in 4 months?
It's like I'm talking to a bunch of CEO's that are incapable of seeing anything else than short term gains.
Unless you're fully bought into the 2025 fearmongering BS, a vote for Biden now means Democrats will learn they can keep doing this in the future.
If this makes Biden lose they will learn that screwing over an entire voter demographic to make Genocide possible is not a viable political strategy.
We arent Europe. Most American Boomers, even the ones who arent republicans, support Israel. Because they're boomers
Suburban boomers are not relevant. Swing voters are the only party that matters. Without them Democrats won't win.
Supposedly Bidens support for israel was because he wants to win the Zionist vote in New York. Strangely everyone found that perfectly reasonable and didn't say anything about how Trump is actually antisemitic (Nevermind that it turns out real Jews actually don't support israel because New York is turning into a Red state right now after Biden got on his knees for Netanyahu)
But using the exact same logic as Biden uses to win Zionist votes, Democrats seem perplexed that Arabs and Muslims aren't going to vote for someone committing Genocide against their people.
Suburban boomers/Xers ARE most of the swing voters
I would love to adopt an European system. I wish .ore people accepted that they have been doing it longer and better. But that whole "we left it behind" thing.
You haven't answered the question. Who else will beat Trump?
Bernie Sanders
God I wish, but no. His time is past.
He isn't dementing yet.
He is older than both Trump and Biden, and we all generally agree both of them are already too old.
He is 1 year older.
Biden is not too old in absolute numbers. He is too old in terms of literally having a mental illness and being unable to function.
Do Democrats not know how aging works too? Not every person contracts an illness at the same age.
Harris, Whitmer, Newsome all poll well.
Aren't the cons planning on doing everything they can to keep Biden from being replaced?
He's been known for making gaffes since he was Obama's vice president. From his Wikipedia page:
Those sources are from 2009.
He has struggled with a stutter most of his life, which he learned to cover up.
AOC or Bernie Sanders.
I think they are probably too polarizing.
Maybe, but we can dream
No. That question will be answered in November. But asking it, and pretending it is meaningful right now, that has another purpose.
This was an important question a few years ago. Isn't it way too late now?
Not at all. Four months is still plenty of time to change candidates. If there's the will for it.
The sad part is that the answer is: Is there a young straight white male that is beloved by the electorate? That is why you see Newsom's name thrown around, as the people democrats like more don't play well to the racisit-sexist-bigoted but not fascist demographic that you need to win an election in the us.
I just want to see the evidence. Biden keeps saying that polls show he is the best choice to beat Trump, but he has either been neck-and-neck or losing by a few points in every recent major poll. So is he trying to tell us the polls are wrong? Or is there polling data that he has that they won't release? How many Democrats of some noteriety were included in those polls? Were these polls taken before or after the debate debacle?
My mind would be more at ease if I could actually verify that Biden was the clear best choice. We're just being told that there are no alternatives and we have to accept the gerentocracy is here to stay. The stark denial of reality that Biden is slipping in the polls during the most crucial election of our lives is not reassuring.
The only thing keeping me on his side right now despite my doubts is that party progressives are backing him while party centrists are trying to oust him. The centrists stand to lose the least if Trump wins, and likely have ulterior motives for going after him now unrelated to his mental fitness.