this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
107 points (99.1% liked)

news

23552 readers
884 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml 61 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That’s a good take. But donors are threatening to pull funding, which is also something the Democratic Party cannot abide.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

But why? Donors don't care that he's old. What is motivating them to pull funding?

imo the donors are worried people won't vote for him. It's still the voters driving this.

[–] Justice@lemmygrad.ml 42 points 3 months ago (1 children)

literally because he had that optically bad "debate" where he couldn't even deliver the talking points to make donors happy

He's also historically, horrifically unpopular and anyone paying attention has seen he has essentially no chance to win since even before the genocide in Gaza began but especially since then his popularity has PLUMMETED mostly because he was isolated and pretending pro-Palestine protests were fringe and small and unpopular when they really weren't.

His own party was polling 80% that Israel had to be forced into a ceasefire- and nevertheless he persisted with mass murder.

A similar portion said they wanted to recognize a Palestinian state- again, nevertheless he persisted.

Month after month straight into hell went his approval.

He took a "close, but winnable" election and cranked it down down down to where it is now where like 8 different planets need to align for him to win. Something those paying attention have been saying since a least a year ago and more. Just took an amazing fuck up to embarrass and motivate the donors to gtfo.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 months ago

Donors are happy as long as their agenda is advanced and Biden being unfit for office doesn't really effect that, what made donors unhappy is waking up to the reality that voters don't like Biden and he can't win. It's the backdrop of immense voter dissatisfaction and months of rank-and-file action against him that is causing donors to freak out, the debate was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

[–] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ding ding ding. I believe that’s a big possibility. It’s a very neoliberal way of thinking to listen to market forces (donors) over constituents. Because what are constituents really than just molecular portions of the market? Whatever the logos, I think it’s easier to imagine democrats replacing Biden because of funding concerns rather that the direct will of voters.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I think it creates the perception of the decision being made from the direct will of the voters, though, and that would be disastrous for the Party. If voters get it into their heads that they can influence the Party it will be hard to stuff that genie back in the bottle.

[–] emizeko@hexbear.net 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

that's why Harris is so perfect for this, because nobody wants Harris

[–] CthulhusIntern@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I hope I'm not lathing it, but if Joe drops out, they might replace him with Harris, then Trump absolutely dominates, possibly to the point of winning all 538 electors unanimously. Then Democrats will say "See? We shouldn't listen to the voters!"

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago

"you leftists got what you wanted, and you still didnt vote!"

[–] tactical_trans_karen@hexbear.net 16 points 3 months ago

Vote with your wallet!! maybe-later-kiddo

[–] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 3 months ago

I agree. I guess we’ll see how much obfuscation of the voters’ will the Democratic Party can tolerate. If history serves as a guide, they’ll eff it up and replace Biden. Hopefully people will realize the genie’s out of the bottle then.

I think it would be easy to contain any popular sentiment from the voters. They tend to be better disciplined than your average Republican primary voter. Plus, look how effortlessly they were able to stop Bernie when they put their mind to it. The donors are another story though.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 17 points 3 months ago

The donors care that he wins. Its not that they they care about what voters want, just that they want a return on their money.

[–] Hestia@hexbear.net 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Because donors don't want to waste money ~~bribing~~ donating to someone who is guaranteed to lose

[–] someone@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Local small-business-tyrant donors putting funds into some small-town mayoral race don't. But the wealthy donors involved in federal matters will donate to both, so that whoever ends up in office is beholden to them regardless of lawn sign colour. These legal bribes aren't gifts, they're investments.

If I told you that you'd make a guaranteed $1,000,000 back in a few years by making two $50,000 donations today, anyone with $100,000 lying around would take that deal in a heartbeat.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

Embarrassment, at a certain point.

The richest people in the room aren't calculators, they're people, and I'm willing to bet that a certain chunk of them think their wealth is the direct result of their ability to gamble correctly. When they make a bad bet it hurts them in the feels.

[–] Chapo_is_Red@hexbear.net 7 points 3 months ago

idk the motivation, but they have pulled significant amount funding, that's an empirical fact. They could reverse that decision, of course, if he weathers the storm.

[–] EmoThugInMyPhase@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Indeed, they may or may not care ideologically about the issues or Biden’s age and performance, but more importantly you don’t bet on the horse whose owner abandoned it and won’t feed or train it. He can poll at 2% approval, but as long the voters are whipped into voting for him, they don’t care because they can advance their agenda with their guy.