this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
102 points (72.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3868 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
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

: “I worked in five presidential campaigns for Republicans and helped elect Republican senators and governors in more than half of the country. For decades, I made ads attacking the Democratic Party. But in all those years, I never saw anything as ridiculous as the push, in the aftermath of last week’s debate, to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee.”

“For many in the party, the event raised genuine concerns about the incumbent’s fitness for a new term. But a president’s record makes a better basis for judgment than a 90-minute broadcast does. Biden has a capable vice president, should he truly become unable to serve. The standard for passing over Democratic voters’ preferred nominee should be extraordinarily high—and has not been met.”

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I can't read the article myself due to the paywall. But presumably these quotes are by the same individual? Why would any Democrat campaign take the advice of someone who has spent decades helping to get Republican presidents elected? Why would he offer his advice to them at all? Certainly not in good faith. And why would he be an expert at what makes a good choice regarding nominees? His campaigns have presumably lost as many as they've won and their electorate is motivated by fundamentally different things. And never has there been a situation like this for either party during an election, a former president and convicted felon and current president circling the drain.

I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but given the source I don't give the slightest fuck what his view point is on matters of the Democratic Party.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're right. He consulted on campaigns for some pretty vile sons-of-bitches, but at least he's a member of the Lincoln project who endorsed Biden in 2020 and voted a straight-D ticket, so in that way he's one of the few who's putting his money where his mouth is.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Well that's good to know. Thank you.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Stuart Stevens is fairly well known as Mitt Romney's top strategist. He is a straight shooter, and his opinion is in good faith.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It’s funny to see someone that is such a neolib that they’d characterize a guy who ran a botched presidential campaign as “straight shooter”.

[–] AlwaysTheir@lemmy.one -4 points 4 months ago

I would love to vote for Mitt Romney instead of Biden. Can we make that happen? I'll vote for basically anything over Trump but I don't like the Biden Harris ticket at all.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Lemmy will shriek for months that progressives want Trump to win, then immediately believe that a Republican strategist isn't encouraging them to stick with a candidate who is going to lose if he stays in the race.