Sure I’d rather vote for someone with Bernie’s politics but that’s not on the table right now. I’ll happily vote for Biden over literal christo-fascism and the destruction of our democracy any fucking time.
Yeah, I see it as voting yes on a referendum to actually have a 2028 election.
I have a feeling that’s how all of our elections are going to be from now on.
When people we won’t vote against literal fascism because the alternative isn’t their ideal candidate then ya. Republicans have no reason to not choose a dictator as their candidate next time when the dictator this time has a legitimate chance of actually winning.
What needs to happen is for the Republicans to lose so abysmally that they see this shit isn’t going to work and they restructure and kick out the crazies.
Probably ninety percent of those would want to replace any relevant Democrat that made it on the ballet. Big deal. What a useless story.
Yeah, that’s the expected result for any party that isn’t a cult.
If 62% wanted to replace him with the same alternative candidate, that would be significant.
What?
This is percentage of Biden voters…
The majority of people who would vote for him. Wishes there was any other option.
That’s a pretty big story
Anyone thinking about responding to this poster, please look at their post history so you know what you’re getting into with regard to ANYTHING even tangentially related to Biden.
True for the OP too. There’s definitely an element on some of the Lemmy communities that seems to exist only or at least primarily to push negative Biden prop (or barring that, anti-US prop in general). I checked Reddit recently for the first time in months (kind of like going to Walmart–avoid it like the plague, but sometimes you just can’t), and I was genuinely astonished at how little anti-Biden content was present by comparison.
I’m voting for Joe in November, and you should too. Joe’s administration killed non-competes, flipped the procedure for airline canceled and delayed flight refunds (i.e., pro-consumer), and pushed back the exempt employee loophole–and that’s just the news from this week. He’s an awesome president without even considering that the other side is composed entirely of criminals, Russian assets, and fascists.
It’s an important fact, but hardly a major or unique case. I know I’ve personally never felt like any of the candidates in any of the elections I remember were great, just “good enough” or “better than some of the alternatives,” I certainly would’ve replaced them if I could.
Looking at some recent primaries
Back in 2020, Biden only had 51.7% of the votes in the democratic primaries. That made him by far the biggest single candidate, but that also means that almost half of democrats would have probably been happy to replace them with one of the other 4 candidates if they could (though they would have disagreed on which of the 4.) Most of them would still go on to vote for biden despite him not being their first pick.
In 2016, trump won with 44.9%, again the biggest single candidate, but that means that 55.1% wanted not trump. Of course most of that majority still held their nose and voted for him in November, but the majority of them probably would have been happy to replace him at that time if they could.
2008 was really fucking close for the Democrats, Obama beat out Hillary with 48.1% of the vote to her 48%, and the remaining 3.9% voting for various other candidates, that means that the majority (51.9%) of people wanted a candidate other than Obama. Same year, McCain won his primary with 46.7%, so again the majority did not vote for him but for various other candidates.
And I think it’s pretty safe to say that in just about any election throughout history, voters would like to replace the opposing party’s candidate if they could, no surprise there.
A really big news story would be if the majority of the party not only would replace their candidate if they could, but were actually in agreement on who they would replace them with. If 6 in 10 Democrats said “We would like to replace Biden with this one specific other person that we all agreed on” then that would be big news.
Replace everyone in the house and senate if youre serious about changing anything
Ever see a story in the sidebar, and know before clicking on it who posted it?
It’s a tone thing.
There’s a few regular article posters than either post articles with a certain tone to the headline or they editorialize the post title to fit their narrative. It’s similar to how you can notice how somebody you’re familiar with writes and uses language and can identify potential alt/sock puppet accounts from them.
Due to this I’ve come to believe that these people are astro-turfers with a disengenous agenda.
The Community Info. Depending on the website layout it is often displayed on the side of the screen, as a sidebar next to the main content. It usually has things like community rules. Some layouts and mobile apps refer to it as the sidebar, community description, or the community info.
No shit but also why the fuck didn’t we primary him?
Seems like they’d have done better with 62% of the voting public behind them.
Trump faced an entire gaggle of conservative opponents and rarely failed to clear the 50% mark by state.
Biden’s biggest defeat was to the 20% of voters who cast spoiled ballots in Michigan. Marianna Williamson and Dean Phillips were barely acknowledged.
Even RFK Jr isn’t polling at better than 10%.
Who do these people actually want for the position?
RFK is a prop to give the illusion that Biden is more moderate than he really is.
Because causing division/voter apathy when facing a threat to democracy is a terrible idea
Democracy is perfectly fine until my candidate loses, at which point democracy is dead until late September when mid-terms start ramping up, and then suddenly democracy works again and we need to get ready to vote in 2026.
All the way up till 2024 democrats were furiously protecting Biden. Shutting down any critism of him. Now it’s election time and all the discussions they refused to have for the last 3 years are at the forefront. Shame they waste their energy defending the presidential elect rather than vetting the better candidates. Like thats never blown up in their faces.
Except for the fact, of course, that the Democrat primaries have never been more democratic. But let’s not let the facts or history get in the way of the narrative!
So you are admitting they were previously less democratic and could be more democratic?
Well, I mean it’s a lot of effort rigging things so they don’t look completely janky. Debbie Whatsername-Smith was done worn out at the end of 2016 making sure it was Her Turn.
Watching the media lose its mind in 2020 when Bernie won Nevada, and candidates abandoning their campaigns like rats fleeing a sinking ship when he won California, really makes me think it was more than just DWS in 2016 fucking with things.
Also, whatever you do, don’t google “Shadow Inc Acronym Iowa Primary” or trust anything this news article says about the caucus process because its fine, everything is fine, democracy is actually very healthy and normal in this country, and anyone who says otherwise is a Russian bot.
Because no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president. It would be a waste of time and money.
no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president
So, a bit of history.
https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
Before primary elections became the dominant way to pick a nominee, party leaders were more able to either shut down challengers or smoothly pass the nomination to someone else. Notably, four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place.
Then
In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, President Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.
Also
TIME reported that McCarthy’s surprisingly strong showing in the New Hampshire primary was a statement that was “as much anti-Johnson as antiwar,” citing a NBC poll that found more than half of Democrats didn’t even know McCarthy’s position on Vietnam. Less than a week after New Hampshire, Attorney General Robert Kennedy jumped into the race. Then, on March 31, Johnson announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election.
As TIME reported in the April 12, 1968, article on Johnson dropping out, “So low had Johnson’s popularity sunk, said one Democratic official, that last-minute surveys before the Wisconsin primary gave him a humiliating 12% of the vote there.”
It should be noted that Ford nearly lost to Reagan in 1976
He racked up 1,187 delegates compared to Ronald Reagan’s 1,070, which was barely more than the 1,130 he needed to secure the nomination.
And Kennedy nearly beat Carter four years later
Carter won 36 primaries that year, but Kennedy’s 12 victories included important ones in New York and California, and he didn’t concede until Aug. 11, 1980, at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.
In another historic race, William Taft was nearly edged out by Theodore Roosevelt, who went on to place second behind Woodrow Wilson in 1912. That gave Taft the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent to come in at third place in a general election.
62% of the voters seem to think it’s a worthwhile endeavor. You’re probably right in the sense that democrats couldnt find a progressive candidate if they came up and kicked them in the ass.
The last time the Democrats did that was Ted Kennedy challenging Carter. Even with a historically unpopular president and a well-known challenger he still lost.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but our government is dysfunctional and incumbents are not successfully primaried.
