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
Because those votes are mainly votes against Trump and even a trash can would probably pull in similar protest votes. All the more reason the idea of a better candidate that people are even slightly more enthusiastic over could push those numbers up
Yep. I'm voting against Trump, not for Biden. Trump could run against a rock for all I care.
Therein lies the rub. There aren't any democrats that poll better.
No other democrat is campaigning though...
True. However, national exposure is a large factor and even if there was someone vetted, they still will walk unintroduced on the national stage.
Factually untrue.
This has Biden down 6 points. And Kamala only down 2.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/cnn-poll-post-debate/index.html
But your comparing Biden as "the candidate" with the DNC and millions of dollars of campaign against people that haven't even said they're willing to run...
Obviously anyone else that becomes the candidate would see a significant boost to their numbers both short and long term.
But others also are polling closer (better) than Biden...
That's 4 people polling better than Biden in the last couple days....
Weird you haven't seen it yet.
You realize the Venn diagram of "Candidates the DNC financiers support" and "Candidates that would get more support than Joe Biden" doesn't actually overlap, right?
If campaign financing is the primary consideration then we deserve the shit storm that's coming.
The press constantly talks about the so-called "money primary." No Dem has ever objected to such phrasing.
The money primary is the actual primary in our system of governance.
We the plebs only get to pick one of the pre-selected billionaire champions.
Yeah.
The vast majority willing to vote for Biden, would vote "blue no matter who".
Which means logically, switching candidates is the smartest plan if all that matters is stopping trump.
But a very small, very vocal group of Biden voters (and even Biden) seem to be lying about what's most important. I still can't believe Biden really said he wouldn't care if he lost.
If they can't get Biden. A Republican is their second pick.
They just won't admit it.
But it's the only logical reason people would be insisting it has to be Biden. Just like Joe, they don't care if trump wins.
Personally i think they're just as scared as we are. They're just too fucking old to have a realistic picture of the political landscape. Gen X is going to get us all killed.
Bruh, gen X isn't in charge of shit...
You know Biden and a lot of party leaders are still the generation ahead of Baby Boomers, right?
The youngest boomers are 60, how many party leaders calling the shots are significantly under 60?
The party leaders aren't the ones preventing a move on Biden. Basic support for Biden is tantamount to no action at this point but they are generally taking a wait and see approach. Im mostly taking about the political influencers telling you not to believe your eyes and ears.
Any candidate but Harris would not have access to the money already raised.
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money wins (ignoring 2016).
Meaning the only option the democrats have is to put Harris at the top of the ticket.
What the fuck are you talking about? You just decided to lie like that? That's wild
? What is this in reference to?
My bad, I typed up a whole response to you but apparently never sent it and now it's gone. Here's a brief reply
My criticism was about the claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It's ridiculous to think they wouldn't support the DNC's candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they've received from donors for basically whatever they want.
From what I just read yesterday, the majority of money was donated to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the DNC. Harris has to be on the ticket for all of that money to follow through, otherwise you are looking at a very small percentage of money transferring.
For instance, when Sanders dropped out, none of the money he raised automatically went to Clinton or Biden. Campaigns still have to follow campaign contribution laws when they donate to others.
If Biden drops out (I am leading toward he shouldn't but fully side with the argument that he should if we lived in a perfect world), Harris has to be on the ticket or Trump is almost certainly the victor based off history alone.
Fair enough. I agree that that if it's in her/biden's name maybe normal campaign financing laws apply. That wasn't what I was hearing, but I won't pretend I looked into it in more detail.
That said, there are tons of ways to donate money from one party to another without breaking any laws - that's kind of the whole problem we have. There's no reason to think Harris keeps that money for her own campaign if we were in the scenario where we're running a third person that isn't either of them. It certainly isn't a reason to end the discussion for getting us at least a fighting chance.
I understand how scary this is and how foreign the situation we're in feels, but I don't think the answer is necessarily to look for the safest option (especially if that means an old man with blatant dementia).
In a perfect world, we'd fill the streets and force them to put that money in a transparent account and use it to fund a candidate people actually support (one that support public financing of campaigns and all the end unnecessary spending and legalized bribery)
The way I look at it is, if Biden is as bad as we think he is, Kamala has already been acting as president. If we vote for him and he can't finish his term, than nothing of note would actually be changed.
The question is, does she need him on the ticket to beat Trump?
What did they lie about?
Ouch. I typed up a whole reply to them but apparently never sent it and now it's gone. Sigh. Oh well. I'll reply to them next
My criticism was about their claim that only Harris could use the campaign money. It's ridiculous to think that they wouldn't support the DNC's candidate. Besides that, there are tons PACs that can use the money they've received from donors for basically whatever they want.
The reply was maybe a bit harsh, in hindsight, but I keep seeing that parroted around like it's undoubtedly true. It's clearly just being repeated and not said with any significant critical thought. I mean, if we had a brokered convention it would be all hands on deck at the DNC.