politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Kamala looks to be polling about 10 points lower than Biden, and she would be the defacto replacement, and anyone else seeking the nom would have to get past her to get the nom. Pushing him out looks extremely risky at this point.
Well thing is polls are always little bad at predicting in this kind of situation. Since for example, if Harris was the candidate, the campaign machine would change messaging behind her. This might affect things and so on.
So any one who isn't the main candidate has to be taken with "what would be this persons chances on election day taking in account between now and then campaign machine will be pushing them"
Many many other candidates have benefit of "don't look like they are at deaths door and statistically aren't beyond the expected life expectancy of USA population for person born so long ago."
Since realistically for example as morbid as it is ( and democrats and Biden forced themselves for me to making this comparison by insisting on the old man), one isn't voting for President Biden for 4 years. Nah it's like maybe 1-2 of President Biden and then rest of the term President Harris. Since that man is so old and looking bad health, he gets elected he is going to die in office. He will die in year or two also out of office, but well he really should take his retirement and enjoy the year or two of life he has left.
So the "Harris wouldn't be better choice", well she will be the choice in year or two. Don't think voters don't take that into account. People aren't dumb and can read life expectancy chart and use their eyes.
You're right. Polls are more responsive to the things going on than predictive about what should happen. As the situation changes, polls would change to reflect that, but Kamala is starting from about the worst position of anyone, which is worrisome because it means a lot more messaging to turn people around.
If that were true, and I don't buy into the scenario or that it significantly affects how people will vote, but I'll entertain it, how do you expect things to turn out differently if Kamala were at the top is the ticket? If anything, that feels like an argument that Kamala is hurting Biden's numbers.
They need to stop campaigning on the issue of the presidency and start campaigning on the representatives and senators. People are overwhelmingly going to vote within party lines, and most young people who don't vote do so because they falsely believe their votes don't matter. This can be demonstrated to be untrue for congressional elections.
Let the DNC pick a candidate for the presidency who they think is good. The people don't choose the president, the states do. The electoral college makes sure of that in all but 2 states. Let the people vote for the Congress that the president has to work with. If you only give publicity to the ONE elected role that isn't really elected by the people, you'll get more voter apathy.
THEY NEVER LEARN THIS FUCKING LESSON, EVER.
2016 should have been about judges not "its her turn to be president, look look it's a lady feller an gosh darnit shes going to be the first! Now be happy for her, shut up, and vote!"
I had to really think about what you are actually saying here. Congress campaigns every election, so nothing new there. And I presume we campaign on the nominee after they are selected.
So your idea boils down to Joe steps down without any clear successor and the party just picks someone at the last minute. The party who thought Hillary was a good idea in 2016 picks the candidate? In a race where Kamala is the clearest next choice?
You wind up with exactly what I was suggesting wouldn't work in the first place, I'm pretty sure.
I'm saying that no matter who they choose for President, MOST people aren't going to like it. Hillary WAS a good choice in 2016. Bernie would have been better, but Hillary was not a bad choice. Biden isn't as strong of a choice as Hillary was. We don't have ranked choice voting so there's no clear solution to that issue, no matter who you pick.
So, to get the most turnout among Democrats, educate people on why they should care more about their congresspeople than their president. Get them to the polls by appealing to what they can influence, since the presidential candidate choice is moot. It's a losing strategy to try to rally everyone behind that. Divert attention to all the incumbents with the highest chance of losing their seat, and the seats up for reelection in swing states. Change the strategy and choose who you want as the candidate. People are voting for "Not Trump" more than they're really voting for "Biden" so they're going to mark the (D) regardless of the name it's attached to. We just have to get them to the polls.
I'll definitely argue that Hillary was a terrible candidate in 2016, and I think the fact that she lost a race damn near anyone should've been able to win is evidence of that. I don't think anyone but Hillary could've lost to Trump. But that's not the point here, so I'll leave that for another time.
So change the people? I really think that is an incredibly optimistic take. People don't want to be educated. Look at how people use upvotes and downvotes here and on Reddit. The idea is to upvote valuable comments and downvote low quality whether or not you agree, but the reality is a lot of people use it as an agree/disagree button. So we can't even educate Lemmy users about how to vote and you suggest educating the electorate? I just don't think that's going to work out.
I feel like there is a couple hundred years of conclusive data that says you are wrong about this.
I agree with this, I just think it's very much not the whole picture.
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of a relatively politically interested person fairly aware of the issues, candidates, etm. I think you are missing the vast number of people that are barely politically aware and basically uninterested other than funny memes.
My wife shuts me down when I try to tell her about politics. She either doesn't care or the news is awful enough and she's already stressed enough about real shit in her life to worry about that shit as well.
Now she's voting Dem based on women's and queer rights, but there are a lot of people out there like her who just avoid thinking about politics as much as they can. A single candidate and a few soundbites are all they are willing/able to process. I just don't think your strategy reaches anyone outside the base who like you said are going to vote Dem regardless.
I appreciate (and upvoted) your thinking outside the box and enthusiasm, but I just don't know how much you've run into this abject apathy about politics, but it's a big part of the electorate and honestly I think those people have been the key to Trump's success. Sure, he has billionaires and racists and evangelicals, but I think what puts him over the top is people who vote based on memes. And I think if you make no attempt to even meet him on that level, it's a blowout Trump victory.
Yup. Biden can't win, Harris can't win, and if they both get bounced, whoever gets picked will be rejected by voters under the premise of "Well I didn't vote for you!"
The only way this ends well for the Democrats is for Biden to die, Harris becomes President, and gets a massive sympathy bump.
well the end of your comment is ghoulish but otherwise this is what gets me. the moment you go about replacing him you create a worse condition of the replacement is not what I wantism.