this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
337 points (84.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2768 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] 17 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Yeah cause it's a great idea to change candidates 4 fucking months before the election.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

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

This whole "12 month election cycle" bullshit is a pretty new phenomenon.

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?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago

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?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Socsa 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Habahnow -2 points 4 months ago

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.

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

A shiny new candidate would split the Democrat vote guaranteeing Trump the win.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

It's a bad idea not to when it'd be a guaranteed loss

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

well its a great idea for your opponent to push forward.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Corkyskog 3 points 4 months ago

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.

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

nearly all elections were like this until 2016; nobody was sure who the candidate was until the convention.