49 points

Old man in politics that doesn’t say fuck the constitution performs better against old man that says fuck the constitution than younger woman who hates progress.

permalink
report
reply
44 points

Dropping Harris would only benefit the Biden campaign.

permalink
report
reply
15 points
*

I hate it, but if Biden dropped Harris and picked up Adam Kinzinger, the election would be in the bag. He wouldn’t lose any Democrats and he would pick up all the never trumper Repubs and a majority of centrists/undecided voters. (And Trump might just have a stroke when he hears about it).

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

She just wasn’t the VP we need. At 81 there are some that will take that into account.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

At his age, he should be considering his VP very carefully. It matters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

There is nothing wrong with her personally. It’s simply the intersection of sexism and racism that makes things harder for all female minorities in positions of power. The same is true for Fawny Willis, AOC, even Michelle Obama. Democrats aren’t immune.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Who’s Kinzinger? Jay Pritzker should run.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Kinzinger is one of the two Republicans who ran the Jan 6 committee, along with Liz Cheney.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’m sure whoever Trump picks would also do worse against Biden

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points
*

I still feel like we haven’t had really strong candidates for some elections now.

2016:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Americans’ Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking

The Democratic primary will technically march on, but Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be her party’s nominee. Same with Donald Trump. And voters don’t appear thrilled at the prospect: Clinton and Trump are both more strongly disliked than any nominee at this point in the past 10 presidential cycles.

2020:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/polls-trump-biden.html

Both Candidates Are Widely Disliked (Again). This Time, Biden Could Benefit.

This could be the second straight presidential contest in which both candidates are viewed negatively by a majority of voters.

2024:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/25/politics/biden-trump-unpopular-president-election-2024/index.html

Biden vs. Trump: The 2024 race a historic number of Americans don’t want

permalink
report
reply
81 points

We had a strong candidate in 2016 and the DNC literally committed fraud to deny him a nomination.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points

Yep. Thanks for mentioning it. Wasserman Schultz and her cronies gave old Sanders the shaft after HRC paid off the DNC debt.

“Democracy.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Plutocracy

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Imagine if Bernie had broken with the party. There’s a good chance he could’ve attracted a lot of otherwise disillusioned people and formed a real, viable third party candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The strength of Bernie in the general election remains an unproven hypothesis. But I agree that the DNC behaved inappropriately. The nature of primaries as “private” elections controlled by the party makes this type of behavior fairly inevitable.

Though the RNC also tried to stop Trump, they just failed at it, so parties don’t necessarily have complete control over the outcome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He was polling ahead of Trump, Clinton was polling behind. We don’t know if that would’ve continued to the actual election but we do know that Clinton lost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

We had a strong candidate in 2016 and the DNC literally committed fraud to deny him a nomination.

No they didn’t. You can complain about how they ran it, or that they showed a preference for Clinton, but she absolutely destroyed him and this “they committed fraud against him!” is equally as empty as the Trump supporters who claim the same. And, FTR, I voted for sanders in 2016.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

There was a reasonably strong slate in 2020, and Dem primary voters passed them over for the old white guy as a hedge against the voting preferences of casually-racist and sexist boomer voters in the general electorate. The shit of it is that their reasoning wasn’t without merit either. But that’s left us where we are now, with a milquetoast octogenarian as the last bulwark against putting the fascist septuagenarian dementia patient back in charge, and nobody likes those options even if one is obviously less bad than the other.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

There was a reasonably strong slate in 2020

Tulsi Gabbard looked promising at the time; too bad she went off the rails.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

She went off the rails long before that, but it took some time for her fan base to catch up with reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Good thing Biden’s not running against Harris.

Also, you can’t really in good faith talk about Biden’s"increased questions about his mental acuity to serve for another term" without quoting one of Trump’s incoherent ramblings about the difficult tests his doctor gave him.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

It’s a poorly phrased title; they’re trying to say that Biden is doing better against Trump than Harris hypothetically would if she was running instead of Biden

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I wouldn’t worry one bit if Harris has to step in for Biden. She may not be my number one choice, but she is absolutely better than average IMO.

Edit:

Ah I see some worry she might not be entirely white or entirely male…
Honestly! You that downvote, what controversial point can you think of with Harris?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Her track record with law and order is troubling, for one. Her “tough on crime” stance worried me in the primaries, and it would give me concern today.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

Don’t get me wrong, I’d take nearly anyone over Trump, but it is not unfounded that she takes flack. She hasn’t been a great champion for Biden either. When Biden was VP, he was always there to have Barack’s back. I have never gotten the same impression from Harris.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Pollsters for Emerson found a higher percentage of voters who said they were undecided in the match-ups with Newsom and Whitmer than with Biden or Harris. Only 11 percent were undecided in the match-up with Harris, while 18 percent were undecided with Newsom and 22 percent were undecided with Whitmer.

National political leader has better name recognition than state level political leaders in national poll, news at 11

permalink
report
reply
9 points

news at 11

Sarcasm totally unfounded here because there are plenty of people arguing that anyone but Biden would be a better bet against Trump. But you point out one of the huge advantages of an incumbent has: name recognition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I’m pretty sure that disadvantage for those candidates would disappear in about 24 hours if Biden suddenly became unavailable to run and voters got told “If you don’t want four more years of Trump, vote [whoever]”

e; an attempt at better phrasing

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s an inconvenient truth for people that Biden is the strongest and safest opponent against Trump. His incumbency advantage is significant.

It’s possible another candidate would do better against Trump, but that’s where “safest” comes into consideration. There’s more unknowns and it’s more risky. Our best bet would be to focus on a better candidate for 2028 and get started early with them

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

His incumbency is likely to be a weight around his neck. When was the last time we had a Democratic candidate who polled worse than a Republican among Hispanics and under-35 voters? I really hope you don’t have to eat your words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yup.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 481K

    Comments