Hillary Clinton ran against a sexual predator. She should have mopped the floor with him. She didn't.
Any election against Trump will be close. The problem isn't age. The problem is Trump supporters.
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
107 points (80.9% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2545 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that Republicans don't vote for a candidate they vote for a party. The Republicans could run Hitler's reanimated corpse as their candidate and as long as it had that R next to its name it would get their vote. Democrats on the other hand are much more likely to not vote for or not even show up to vote at all for a candidate they don't particularly like. It's why good Democrat candidates always beat Republican candidates of any kind, but bad candidates usually lose. Democrats massively outnumber Republicans, but the Democrat party nearly always runs the worst possible candidate. If Republicans win any election it's not because they had a good candidate, it's always because Democrats ran a bad one.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
So, under the leadership of Clinton, Pelosi, and Schumer, they chose to make the swing voters the ones they appeal to most. Maybe Bernie’s positive populism would have matched up better against Trump’s negative populism than Clinton’s outdated neoliberalism. But leadership and the DNC would rather lose an election and keep control than win but lose their place atop the party hierarchy.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
I think it's simultaneously less conspiratorial and more nefarious than that: the establishment wing of the party likes power and power means control over campaign funding, so they pander to large corporate donors by suppressing anti-corporate populists.
That, and how much the rural vote is overly counted.
No, the problem is democrats refusing to run a real populist against a fake populist like Trump. Instead we get the same establishment garbage, which is exactly what the Trump campaign is geared towards defeating. Schiff is also incorrect - Kamala would be just as bad in this regard.
If Dems run a real populist who is a champion of the people, not the corporations, Trump would be exposed and the whole MAGA movement would fall apart at the seams.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Kamala Harris could win "overwhelmingly"
Citation needed.
She is hated more than Biden. I doubt this would play out as intended.
Yes, but that was before everyone saw a sundowning POTUS on that debate stage.
Attitudes have changed amongst the DNC establishment, at least according to the reporting.
Anecdotally, I've heard similar feelings echoed in far left/socialist circles.
I will say I haven't seen any new polling that take recent events into account. I assume those figures exist, I just haven't seen you come across my feeds yet.
The last polling I saw on her actually had her doing considerably better than Biden. Her approval rating is about the same, but her disapproval is much lower. She's not the strongest candidate, and I don't particularly like her, but she's got a better shot than Biden at this point.
load more comments
(12 replies)
This is simply not true. Its this close because half the population has been raped by education defunding and copious amounts of right wing propaganda. Allowing people and entities to control large swathes of media networks has been disastrous. Repealing the Fairness Act has been a fucken tragedy. It could be anybody, literally. Throw Harris up there and watch the machine get to work. This isn't a mystery. This isn't about age. Its about the death throws of the Republican Party, and them ending democracy to hold onto power. Ya'll are eating it up and being divided. Just keep drinking that juice, I guarantee this push has republicans somewhere behind it.
Could you describe the push you're referring to? We all saw the debate, then the poll drop, then the calls for Biden to step aside. Which of those events have republicans behind them? We all just want the best chance at beating Trump, and many of us think that's not Biden. I don't think the media is to blame for reporting on what each congressperson is saying -- that's kinda their job, and that's whats going to get clicks -- but I do think they are to blame for the opinion articles that are saying "I'm not voting, you shouldn't either." Obviously that is horseshit. If Biden's the nominee, you gotta vote for him. But I struggle to think that the drama surrounding Biden's candidacy is somehow sparked by some hidden republicans pulling the strings. The dude just performed really poorly in a debate that he himself wanted, and then he doubled down with some awful awful soundbites about him being okay with Trump winning, as long as he tried his best.
Its like dude, have some fuckin awareness. The stakes aren't low enough for you to be self satisfied with doing your best.
The focus on Biden's age at the 11th hour is what is strange. We knew the dude was ancient, shit we expected Harris to have to take the torch mid term. But now its too old? Right before the elections? Now is the time? I dont think so bud. None of this new and it could not come at a worse time for Democrats. I've seen a fucken dizzying amount on Biden's age, but none on how Trump sounded like a martian lunatic? Something smells fishy to me boss.
I mean, the age thing has been a concern for a while, but Democratic messaging really played it down, and the State of the Union was also a pretty good reliever in that sense. But the debate was a lot lot worse than the State of the Union, and that just completely shattered the illusion that Biden is in command, in terms of not only his own health but in the election, itself.
You're asking why now? Well, the debate is what sparked this. But now is the time because we are afraid of what a Trump presidency could mean, especially after the Supreme Court decisions last week. Now is the time because the debate just exposed Biden's greatest electability weakness (not, necessarily, his ability to make decisions based an a talented and experienced group of advisors). And now is the time because we think he won't win, and that this whole time the United States have been asking for a younger candidate, so why don't we give them one?
I don't think you really need a Republican conspiracy behind all that to explain why there is such panic in the democratic party right now. But thanks for answering my question genuinely.
load more comments
(5 replies)
It's not his age, it's his behavior. And he's been doing this shit for a couple years now. Pretending it's just his age is more disingenuous gaslighting.
Remember after Jan 6 when Republicans overwhelmingly were shocked and disgusted eith trump and publicly decried his actions, and then in a few weeks they basically sucked his dick? Why do democrats publicly want to show dissatisfaction and disdain amongst their own party and they stick to it so the media gets stuck in this endless loop while we jsut had a political debate where the Republicans top nominee (which was publicly trashed by his party for Jan 6th) said the absolute worst will happen if the country elects him?
So much in fighting on the dem side with a guckin dictator in waiting for the Republicans. Get your shit together dems
So what you're advocating is figuratively sucking the candidates dick no matter what terrible thing he does (aka blind worship), like republicans do?
And that would make you different than them, how exactly?
Not really. Let's say people don't vote at all because they don't like this guy or that guy. Who benefits? The Republicans at this stage. Let's say a real third party surfaces. Hypothetically let's say AOC. Who benefits? Republicans because now a democratic vote is split among 2 candidates. Brain worm Kennedy won't split the republican vote to benefit the democrats because there's no cult of worm following for him.
I hate to say to vote for the lesser of two evils. Both sides have done wrong. But personally I'll not vote for an outright dictator-to-be in trump. And that is for this moment in time mind you. These are supposedly the best candidate these 2 parties offer and they both suck. But again personally I feel we can work something out with democrats while Republicans have a single agenda, theirs.
A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris... so...
Yeah really, if you like Harris, just vote for Biden and wait a couple of months.
No she couldn’t.
Ironic coming from someone who just pimped his Republican challenger to blow off 2 other Democratic candidates, same dangerous idiotic move a certain presidential candidate tried some years ago.
Does DNC have any other strategies?
Heh. Thats a good point.
DNC: IF YOU CHALLENGE BIDEN IN THE PRIMARY YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!! NO DEBATES!! WE'LL SHUT YOU THE FUCK DOWN MARYANNE WILLIAMSON!!!
Also DNC: Did I do a fucky-wuckey? Oops.
I saw a Prius with both Kennedy and Marianne stickers in the back.
No, I don't want to come over for dinner.
He doesn't seem to want to pass the torch.
A Jul 2 poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos had Kamala Harris losing to Donald Trump by 1 point (42% to 43%) if she were to replace President Biden. The only Democrat who would hypothetically beat Trump according to the poll is Michelle Obama, who would have an 11-point advantage over the former president. However, the former First Lady has expressed several times over the years that she will not be running for president.
It's interesting, this farce and display of pride and ego. All Biden has to do is one of two things:
-
Go all- in. Set up another debate. Make sure he's top of his game. Go full Dark Brandon and absolutely wipe the floor. Then apologize AFTER doing this for his previous bad performance. Do this right, reaaally sell it, and he'll come out the other side in a better position. Do it wrong and it'll hurt his campaign even more. Trump doesn't even have to show up. The point is giving Biden the same opportunity to step up. Toss in some late night talk shows with hard questions. When you have trust to gain back you have to work twice as hard.
-
Be a leader and talk to us all. Put forth a nominee to take his place. Work with them on the campaign trail and truly ask all of us to step up for our Nation, as one.
AND YET we appear to be getting some silly asinine middle-of-the-road choice.
I like Biden for many of the policies and steps he and his administration have taken these last four years. They've done good and sometimes even great things, and made mistakes and done bad things too. Over all, he's been far from the worst President. Now though is the time to step aside as a leader, or rise into that position and take control.
He can't "fix this" the same way he hid it.
The catch 22 he is in, is that he has to very publicly demonstrate to us that the debate was a fluke. The problem, is performances like his Stephanopoulos interview simply affirm the conclusion that he's a deeply out of touch grumpy old man who can keep track of his own thoughts for the duration of a conversation. His: recovery' interview, I mean it wasn't as bad that the debate, but it did still dig the hole deeper.
So if you can go 'show' how this isn't a problem because you make the problem worse, you have to concede.
The reason is ageism.
Want to "win overwhelmingly"? Stop saying you're not as bad as the Toupee. Duh. There's at least 300 million people in the US that fit that statement. Don't tell us to vote against the Other Guy, tell us why we should vote for you, specifically. You had some trivial wins in the past year? Advertise them. You have some plans for working class Americans that you'll pretend never existed the second the election is over? Promise them!
If you want us to vote for a specific person, tell us why that person is worth voting for. If the strategy remains "I'm not as bad as the Other Guy", you might as well just put a blank line next to the D on the ballot.
Same thing goes for all you centrist supporters who automatically assume everyone who wants a better candidate than Biden is secretly a Russian troll who will be voting for the Toupee.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Asked about polling that showed Harris outperforming Trump if she replaced Biden, Schiff said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he thought she would be a “phenomenal president.”
“I think she has the experience, the judgment, the leadership ability to be an extraordinary president,” Schiff told moderator Kristen Welker.
Schiff also said Biden’s interview with ABC News that aired on Friday wasn’t enough to quell mounting concerns from Democrats about his mental fitness.
Can he demonstrate to the American people that what happened on the debate stage was an aberration, that he can and will beat Donald Trump.”
Front-line Democrats who spoke to NBC News say they fear that his debate performance has done irreversible damage to his candidacy.
Biden remained publicly defiant in the face of calls from some Democrats to drop out of the race, repeatedly saying that only “the Lord Almighty” could convince him to end his bid for a second term in office.
The original article contains 628 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›