this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
109 points (75.3% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3517 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Whoever ends up being the candidate will get literally billions of dollars in earned media by simply “becoming” the candidate. The whole drama of it suddenly engages what is currently a completely disengaged voting populace.

This is the most important bit IMO.

At this point, I don't even think of dumping Biden as just a satisfactory fallback position, but as a winning strategy, and specifically for this reason.

It's not as if Biden suddenly became a weak candidate the night of the debate - he's been a weak candidate all along. As I just said earlier, the only thing that changed with the debate is that more people came to that conclusion.

And all it would take to motivate the base - to get Democrats enthused in a way that they haven't been since 2008 - is to throw open the nomination. That would bring the race a sense of excitement and hope that hasn't just been missing since the debate, but all along.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At this point, I don’t even think of dumping Biden as just a satisfactory fallback position, but as a winning strategy, and specifically for this reason.

I see it as a prerequisite for victory.

It’s not as if Biden suddenly became a weak candidate the night of the debate - he’s been a weak candidate all along.

The debate just made it undeniable. The excuses for his performance at the debate have been even more embarrassing.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Name one time...just one where replacing the incumbent 5 months from the general election worked.

This is not just a dumb idea, but people who think like this simply do not have a fucking clue how politics works.

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

Name one time we ran an 81 year old who brags about beating Medicare.

We're already dealing with an unprecedented situation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree with just about everything you say, but I have one question:

And all it would take to motivate the base - to get Democrats enthused in a way that they haven't been since 2008 - is to throw open the nomination. That would bring the race a sense of excitement and hope that hasn't just been missing since the debate, but all along.

What do you mean by "throw open," exactly?

I would love a real second primary with an array of candidates not all of whom were preselected by the billionaires. And a large inclusive debate or two. Is that what you are suggesting?

Or maybe you mean let the billionaires and their purchased Dem elites make a selection for us in a smoke filled room behind closed doors?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would love a real second primary with an array of candidates not all of whom were preselected by the billionaires. And a large inclusive debate or two. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yes.

Sorry - I thought "throw open" was a commonly understood phrase.

It means to open something suddenly and completely - no incremental stages and no limitations - just immediately from closed to fully and completely open.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know what the phrase means but I didn't dare to believe such an optimistic soul could exist. You proved my doubts were unwarranted.

Very cool, and I support your idea 120%! I believe it is possible because the DNC just routinely makes up rules on the go, so nothing's stopping them from opening a second primary. I would be super interested if it were a truly open and a properly democratic primary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At this point, I don’t even think of dumping Biden as just a satisfactory fallback position, but as a winning strategy, and specifically for this reason.

100%

It’s not as if Biden suddenly became a weak candidate the night of the debate - he’s been a weak candidate all along. As I just said earlier, the only thing that changed with the debate is that more people came to that conclusion.

100%

And all it would take to motivate the base - to get Democrats enthused in a way that they haven’t been since 2008 - is to throw open the nomination. That would bring the race a sense of excitement and hope that hasn’t just been missing since the debate, but all along.

and 100%.

Drop Biden and claim the W. Give us someone we can vote for and we will.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Or just vote for the guy who has had win after win after political win for years now.

Have you all been living under a rock? Policy wise Biden is killing it!

We already knew he was old. Nothing has changed.