this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
140 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2326 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 President has captured over 96% of the vote with most of the ballots in and reported.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

That should be the end for Phillips and Williamson

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think either of them are in the race because they think they'll get more votes than the sitting president. Williamson is in to push ideology, Phillips is in because Biden is too old and might die.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They are both there to get delegates and won't. The only other thing they can do is damage Biden, and that too is a failure.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If having to run a primary is 'damaging' to a candidate, maybe they shouldn't be in politics. I would argue that Biden sending weapons to a genocidal country is infinitely more damaging to his re-election prospects.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's because everything to you is about one issue. Reality isn't like that.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There's way more issues I don't agree with Biden, but currently supplying weapons that are actively used for a genocide without preconditions is pretty bad compared to stuff like student loans or whatever.

From a purely electoral standpoint, he's basically lost Michigan because of this.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's a long time before an election, grasshopper

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure all those Palestinians in Dearborn will forget all about how their family members got exterminated with American bombs come election time. Not to mention, Biden is doing his best to escalate things in the middle east, so I expect things to be worse, not better.

And again, he's losing people all over the place on other issues as well, and there's the senior moments as well. And of course there's breaking the election promise that he'd be a one term President.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Many things can happen and Palestinians aren't the determining voting block for Michigan.

[–] Machinist3359@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

Not possible for Biden to look good in the fight? Well I have bad news, he'll need to fight in the general election and his approval numbers are already trash...

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 10 months ago

LOL, what? People run for president for all kinds of reasons despite not having a chance. Did you even know who Marianne Williamson or Andrew Yang were four years ago? Pete Buttigieg went from being a town mayor to the Secretary of Transportation. Is this like, literally your first primary?

The only damage Biden needs to worry about in this primary is the inevitable passage of time bringing him closer and closer to death.

[–] ctkatz@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

dean phillips isn't dropping out anytime soon. steve schmidt still has hundreds of thousands of dollars to grift off of him still.

btw the phillips campaign should tell you that all of that waxing ~~moronic~~ on and on steve schmidt did about saving democracy and protecting the country from trump was nothing but posturing for the msnbc liberals. if he actually cared about all of that, he would have told his client dean phillips to pack it up after NOBODY showed up for his coffee and conversation event in new hampshire.

[–] doctorcrimson -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Well, yes, but actually no.

How it works is the states doll out partisan delegates based on primary election outcomes and the person with the most at the end wins assuming it breaches a certain minimum threshold. Unfortunately SC appears to have an uncommon winner takes all approach so even though one of them earned enough to get one of the 55 delegates they were instead awarded to Biden.

Losing a single state isn't a nail in anybody's coffin, so they're no worse off now than before the DNC primary began, which is to say they've never really had much of a chance against the incumbent.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately SC appears to have an uncommon winner takes all approach so even though one of them earned enough to get one of the 55 delegates they were instead awarded to Biden.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember any Democratic primary states doing winner take all. The allocation is different depending on the party. Republicans have a lot of states that work that way.

[–] doctorcrimson 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm just going by what I saw. 100% / 55 = 1.8% so by that logic one of the runner ups would have a delegate but for some reason it showed Biden had 55.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Delegates aren't awarded by simple percentage of vote. There are minimum amounts before you receive delegates.