• qprimed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    “uncommitted” / “no preference” were explicitly on some state ballots and palestine is a bigger culminating issue than people give credit for. “none of the above” running a distant, but meaningful, second is not encouraging.

    regardless of your thoughts on biden in 2020, a diminished biden was a disaster for the Democrats and (potentially) the country in 2024.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      No, not really. Single issue voters are fairly unusual in the dem party. There are always some, no question, but the very small size of the peace protests compared to those during, say, the Vietnam War era demonstrates a fairly niche issue imo. While most dems believe in peace for Palestine, relatively few would rank it among their top issues.

      Regarding Biden’s diminishment, delegation is the most important skill a leader can possess. It is not a leaders responsibility to make all the decisions, but to organize and provide vision for a group of people that can accomplish far more than any individual. Many people past their youth understand this, due to direct life experience in the broader world. Biden’s diminishment would have had minimal impact on his actual presidency. At the polls, however, yes it definitely was a concern, eventually leading to him dropping out after all. The idea he actually could not win was very, very overblown though. He was still in the running. I think the broader concern was his impact on down-ballot races.

      Regarding uncommitted actually being on some ballots, it seems you’re right. Thank you for the correction, that’s actually sort of funny. lol

      • qprimed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        thanks for the good convo. ignoring any other problems (including palestine being much more than just “single issue”)

        He was still in the running. I think the broader concern was his impact on down-ballot races.

        given the importance of controlling as many branches as possible to make the vitally important needed changes… isnt that innately disqualifying?

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, not to a more traditionally-minded dem. You could say that’s a mistaken thought, that’s my opinion personally. But it reminds me of a democratic leader reportedly saying he was resigning himself to a Trump presidency. It’s common among dems to play with “honor” so much they lose, the much-debated “they go low, we go high” philosophy.