this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
89 points (77.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3075 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
 

The poll, which was conducted from July 7 to July 9, found that 73 percent of Democratic voters "somewhat" or "strongly" approve of Harris as Biden's replacement. In an earlier iteration of the same survey, conducted from July 3 to July 6, a 66 percent majority of Democrats approved of Harris as a replacement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 37 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It would be amazing if Harris, a black woman, beat the shit out of Trump. But how probable is this? I thought Kamala Harris was universally disliked across the board?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's less that she's universally disliked and more that she's not particularly liked. In her most prominent appearances in the past 4 years, she's lacked charisma and not taken stances notable enough to distinguish her from the administration. She's heavily disliked on the left-wing of the Democratic Party for being a DA who laughed about jailing people for drug crimes she herself had committed in the past (possession), and not particularly popular on the right-wing of the Democratic Party because they're still racist, just LESS racist than Republicans.

She may be the best choice to go with at this junction, but she wouldn't be my first pick if the field was open. But the field isn't open, so we make do with what we have.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I do very much like one thing about her. In a race where we need to be hitting Trump very hard on the campaign trail, a former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.

But otherwise I agree.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

former prosecutor should be extremely well-practiced and good at that.

Prosecutor vs. convicted felon. Who wins? Watch our brand new reality show!

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I bet I know who the party of "Law and Order" will vote for!

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

And to that end, I think Newsom would be the safest choice for a pivot by far.

  • white
  • male
  • heterosexual
  • somewhat corporate friendly
  • a bit religious, but not too much
  • charismatic + GREAT public speaker

Reasoning:

  • the first three are simply attributes that make it easier to min/max voter responsiveness in a country that still has a lot of prejudices
  • the fourth is so the mega donors don’t just dig in their heels
  • the fifth is so the religiouses don’t just dig in their heels
  • the sixth is generally a good attribute to have in a serious political contender

We're trying to stop the fascists from winning. Anything else is (unfortunately, but necessarily) secondary at this point. Pragmatic triage of the situation MUST be the mindset with which the party is evaluating their choices.

Of course, the DNC is neither triaging the situation, nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win and stop the fascists, because from where I’m standing, it looks like Biden hasn’t done a great job at any point in his term of slapping down the Nationalist Christians + MAGA crowd (and friends).

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

nor being pragmatic about the candidate who can actually fucking win

It's been a long time, and I don't remember the exact quote and the entire context, but I remember Trae Crowder (the "liberal redneck") on Real Time just after donnie was selected by the EC and people were trying to do some kind of post mortem on just how the hell we ended up with donnie.

And Trae Crowder says something like, "....or do you want to fucking WIN?" I remember Ana Marie Cox looking kind of put out by the comment, but IIRC, it was about pragmatism. I'm pretty sure exchanges like that went on, in various forms, all around the country during 2015-2016 and they are playing out again...

If anyone has a link to that full exchange, or to a transcript of it, I sure would appreciate it, by the way.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Oh, and by the way I love the idea of Newsom, for exactly all the reasons you lay out.

[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Republicans hate few people in the nation as much as Newsom. They would rally hard against him as the Uber-Liberal boogeyman.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you think about the Democratic parties base, two groups stand out. Lefties (like most people on Lemmy) and people of color, particularly black women. If you select Newsom over Harris you i.) deal an enormous insult to people of color, and ii.) don’t go nearly far enough left to satisfy Lefties. What part of the base would be enthusiastic about such a milquetoast replacement?

The part of the base that doesn’t want fascism (I.e. literally anyone who is sane) would be fine with a pragmatic choice.

Don’t fight all battles all the time. In this situation, it would be a grave strategic mistake to try to tick all the boxes in the face of an imminent fascist threat. Pick the guy who’s not going to offend (regressive-minded) people in flyover states, in the interest of, you know, not letting the fascists win.

I’m not saying those goals aren’t important. I am saying that those goals need to take a backseat for the moment to the goal of “let’s not elect the First American Reichschancellor in November”.