this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
515 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2866 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The former president has always considered himself to be the ultimate disrupter. But this time, the disruption is on the other side.

Through the weekend, there were an awful lot of questions that were going back and forth from people in the president’s tightest circle, and one of the questions that kept being asked was whether Joe Biden was going to endorse Kamala Harris or not. And the question didn’t revolve around whether he wanted to or not, but whether people in her camp thought it would be better for her to fight for it, win it on her own, and not be seen as somebody who was tapped by President Biden and so, in her own way, have a fresh start going into the campaign.

So the timing seems to be about as good as it could have been to end what has just been one of the craziest two or three weeks in American politics in quite some time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] marcos 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I laughed a lot when the international news on TV around here claimed that "in a move that took politicians and campaign mangers by surprise, Biden left the race"... But the more I look around, the more it looks like people were surprised by it.

How come?

[–] GladiusB 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Because it hasn't happened a lot. If you are the incumbent, you are running for a second term unless you are beat or dead. Leaving for whatever reasons is very rare.

[–] Xanis 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People saying that Biden should have dropped out two weeks ago have never, in their entire life, had to make a life-changing decision. Whatever the result, I personally applaud his ability to put aside his pride and his ego for the sake of a cause larger than himself.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The timing was excellent in my opinion. The RNC spent an entire week focused on the messaging against Biden during their convention. Now Biden's gone, and they're not going to have another week of undivided attention from the press between now and the election.

Well played, from my perspective.

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

I'm not saying it isn't well played. The DNC always does small little tactic shit like this well. Their issue has always been the longer strategy. That grand reveal. Whatever the Right has, they have played the same game for decades. What's saved us is their infighting once they get any sort of foothold. For the first time in our history, so far as I am aware, we must focus on the Presidency as they have gambled everything on securing it. Stop that and we stop them. Don't stop them and we'll have a long and terrible fight on our hands.

That is unless some of their party is only playing ball and grow a pair when the proverbial shit meets mythical fan of shit flinging. I will say that we've seen moments where some of the party isn't comfortable with the way things have gone. Problem is, as fucking classics, they refuse to stand because they know they'll be pushed out of the club. Better to lay with the herd than be displaced and replaced, possibly by a non-Right.

[–] lemonmelon 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Cal comes to mind... and that's the only one that I can immediately think of.

Edit: looked it up: LBJ, Harry S Truman, Cal, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, and James K. Polk. So yeah, really short list.

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

Everytime someone mentions Harry Truman, I have Linda from Bob's Burgers song that she apparently sings while braiding her daughter's hair come to mind:

Here goes the hair and / There goes the hair and / Where is Harry Truman? / He's dead in the ground. / He's dead in the ground. / He's dead, dead, dead!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Leaving for whatever reasons is very rare.

And, again, disastrous every time. Landslide losses when you switch out the incumbent.

[–] CharlesDarwin 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think too many realists were surprised. I think a lot of people that buy into a lot of bothsiderist bullshit might have been surprised, I dunno. Or the types that some call "blue maga", but honestly, unless someone's paycheck relies on believing in this, I don't know who qualifies as "blue maga".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

I don’t know who qualifies as “blue maga”.

No one. Outside of a MAGA talking point and an attempt to 'both sides' MAGA, it's no one.