this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
-143 points (9.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2165 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
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Joe Biden is the WORST he needs to drop out he is ANCIENT, I demand a replacement or else I will not vote”

“Wtf no no no I meant I wanted you to flail and become disorganized in a way I could find weaknesses in and attack. I mean THEY could. They could find weaknesses and attack. I will not vote for Kamala.”

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 44 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The entire two party system + electoral college is undemocratic.

So why is this tabloid arguing solely about Harris? Where was all this handwringing for the last century?

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They were busy handwringing about how John Kerry was a coward, Gore was boring, and Howard Dean yelled real loud that one time. And, in the meantime, their friends they were running cover for were pulping the American economy for everything they could get, squeezing the vulnerable for every last little drop of blood they could manage to extract, and then throwing a lot of them in prison (profitable! it's just a smart decision) to get rid of them.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Dukakis looked silly in a picture while the Reagan admin was committing treason

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Corporately owned media. Their bottom line is money. Not truth or enlightenment. And most of these owners literally salivate at the thought of being part of the group of fascists that get to make the rules and rake in the resources. Much more than anything we need to see a dissolution of many of these groups. At least in terms of news coverage. There can still be news platforms of course. But the focus should be on the journalist themselves. And their reputations. And not monolithic easily corruptible institutions.

[–] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Conservatives really have their panties in a twist now that their orange pedo god king won’t get an easy win.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Putting Harris at the top of the ticket is a pragmatic approach in the context of an election where we’re trying to stave off a fascist takeover.

Also, FEC campaign regulations would have made it extremely complicated to shift Biden’s existing campaign funds and operational infrastructure to an entirely unrelated candidate.

This is a realistic solution in the context of a flawed system that’s under threat from a fascist takeover. Try to remember that in many cases, perfect is the enemy of good.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I agree, but in the context of 2016 and 2020 the shoe still fits

[–] General_Shenanigans@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The two party system is somewhat undemocratic, but she’s more popular than the incumbent president everybody just assumed we had to stick with. Switching it up like that was more in the interests of the voters, wasn’t it? I don’t understand how that’s grounds for a claim that it was done out of distrust for the voters. Kind of the opposite, isn’t it? It wasn’t just representatives that thought Biden was hitting his limit.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

I was going to begrudgingly vote for Biden. I will now optimistically vote for Harris. I will still get to engage in democracy in November and I did vote "Uncommitted" in the primaries.

While I would love actually competent primaries (and maybe ones that don't just end before getting to my state) and would love an actually Democratic voting system I'm not sure this election was any less Democratic than previous ones.

That could just be me clouding my judgement because I think they made the right choice here, but the alternative was chaos and an inevitable loss.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The politicians in smoke-filled rooms will warn that primary challengers weaken incumbents and might cost the party its electoral ambitions in the general election. They’ll worry that acknowledging the glaring undemocratic nature of the 2024 process will weaken Harris against Trump.

We need a competitive primary every four years no matter what.

We need the party leaders to stop treating primary challenges as a threat, and a way to engage voters.

Incumbents still have a huge advantage, but currently it's almost a political death sentence to run against an incumbent, or not drop out after the first week even when there isn't an incumbent.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

This is the actual take away we need. Harris is a fine candidate for this situation - we were desperate and needed someone in a snap... but we need to have competitive primaries every election.

It's highly likely Harris would have beat Biden and then, instead of that disastrous debate we'd have trounced Trump and low information voters would be more familiar with Harris as a candidate.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Conversation:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://theconversation.com/democratic-partys-choice-of-harris-was-undemocratic-and-the-latest-evidence-of-party-leaders-distrusting-party-voters-236002
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago