- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Oh sure, “now” they have to ask it but a year ago everything was hunky dory. Get fucked
I just want to see the evidence. Biden keeps saying that polls show he is the best choice to beat Trump, but he has either been neck-and-neck or losing by a few points in every recent major poll. So is he trying to tell us the polls are wrong? Or is there polling data that he has that they won’t release? How many Democrats of some noteriety were included in those polls? Were these polls taken before or after the debate debacle?
My mind would be more at ease if I could actually verify that Biden was the clear best choice. We’re just being told that there are no alternatives and we have to accept the gerentocracy is here to stay. The stark denial of reality that Biden is slipping in the polls during the most crucial election of our lives is not reassuring.
The only thing keeping me on his side right now despite my doubts is that party progressives are backing him while party centrists are trying to oust him. The centrists stand to lose the least if Trump wins, and likely have ulterior motives for going after him now unrelated to his mental fitness.
Honestly, we’re basically just voting for Kamala when we vote for Biden.
Jill then Kamala
This is what I’ve been thinking too. Cognitive decline isn’t necessarily fatal. Nancy Reagan used astrologers because she was lost and trying to keep up appearances.
Dunno what Jill/Joe will do. But if he was inclined to step down, I don’t see home doing it for a few years.
If it’s Parkinson’s as alleged then there’s no real reason to freak out, moreso because the cabinet does a substantial amount of the leg work anyway. Realistically so long as other leaders respect and understand him everything is fine and this is just more media doom fabrication.
The Parkinson’s thing was made up.
Yes, a Parkinson’s team visited the White House medical center, but not for Biden - the New York Post just published that out of all the people who work in the White House, it must have been Biden they were there to see, and the New York Times then republished the story because they are equivalent to the Post now apparently.
I assumed, I’m just saying even if their claim is correct it’s not that huge of a deal.
Who, other than Biden, would a Parkinson’s team go to the White House to see, rather than the affected person going to see them?
ESPECIALLY given what they had to know was suspicious optics of the team going there. What sort of emergency would a random person at the white house have to have for a team to show up there despite the questions it would bring?
There’s only a handful of people who would be at the white house, unfeasible to leave, and has their movements in public tracked at all times. Biden is on that short list.
i wish that was a guarantee; i would vote for biden in that case and i would have to hold my nose as tightly to do so.
If we split the votes between third party and democrat again, we’re done for. We’ve already lost this race. Hard stuck democrats won’t be convinced to vote third party. There won’t be enough votes to win. Unfortunately, this is a democrat or fascist dictatorship vote.
Isn’t it already too late? Each state has laws about when a candidate needs to be “entered” so they can get their ballot/mail in/military ballots ready in time. I believe the earliest ballots are going out in like 2 weeks.
This would just set us up for every red state to push lawsuits and would recreate the absolute insanity that was 2020 election, except now these red states have installed “yes men” that will certify/refuse to certify whatever they are told to.
No. The convention is the end of the road. Ohio is an exception and maybe Alabama but I don’t think they’d be able to get away with keep the dem off the ballot completely.
Yeah cause it’s a great idea to change candidates 4 fucking months before the election.
4 months is a massive amount of time. Other counties have their entire election cycle in half the time. America’s 1-2 year long presidential election cycle is so weird.
Isn’t super Tuesday when it usually becomes pretty clear in March, but the convention is where it’s known. So best case scenario a few months ago. Worst case the convention. 12 months is absurd and not possible, unless, your party has decided who will win the primaries before anyone even votes… and they totally don’t do that… ever…
People that are loud about it now are loud because they have been screaming about it for the last 5 years and suddenly the DNC is all surprised like they didn’t already know. We know we’re fucked. But they fucked it. A sentient human will talk a lot of people that are disgusted with the two options to maybe show up and vote. A lot of people just want to watch it burn.
We can’t change candidates because no one has voted on shit. It would split the party (which I am ok with other than the Trump/end of democracy problem). The DNC did this.
All because they were afraid that we would actually get Bernie. They basically begged Biden to run, because no one else would have beaten Bernie in the primary.
It’s a bad idea not to when it’d be a guaranteed loss
nearly all elections were like this until 2016; nobody was sure who the candidate was until the convention.
well its a great idea for your opponent to push forward.
Normally I’d agree, but this ain’t your average election. A Dem candidate younger than Biden could be out there pounding the campaign trail day after day, generating enthusiasm in a way that Biden now seems physically incapable of doing.
Plus, a large number of voters hate both candidates. A shiny new candidate would be exciting and unprecedented, and would get boatloads of attention. They could easily close the gap with Trump, despite what the polls say.
A new candidate will be mince meat from Republican attacks. Right now, there’s limits on what they can say that Biden will do during his term. “He will take away all guns!” But Biden was already president and didn’t do that, “he’s going to force everyone to buy EV cars!” Again, he’s already president and didn’t do that already, etc. A new candidate will get accused of wanting to do all these things, and Republicans/independents will be more likely to believe them than those attacks being attributed to Biden.
A shiny new candidate would split the Democrat vote guaranteeing Trump the win.
There have been plenty of presidential elections where the candidate wasn’t known until the nominating convention in August. This whole “12 month election cycle” bullshit is a pretty new phenomenon.
Anyway, the absolute media shitstorm that will ensue if Biden is dropped from the ticket will more than make up for the late start to a new candidate’s campaign — the new DNC nominee will dominate the news cycle for weeks without having to spend a dime.
This whole “12 month election cycle” bullshit is a pretty new phenomenon.
That exactly the point. We’re in the age of the 24 hour news cycle were attentions spans have been grounded into dust. For a campaign to win there needs to be nonstop engagement. Half of lemmy forgot all the actual good stuff Biden has done in his 4 years. Even the stuff they wanted and legitimately benefitted from. The fuck is a new candidate going to do in 3 or 4 months?
Because attention spans are short, we should need even less time to position a candidate. Voters aren’t going to remember 4 months ago in November, right?
Considering that Biden has done fuck-all to evangelize the good things his administration has done, anything a new candidate does to campaign in the next few months would be an improvement.
It’s not the president’s job to evangelize his accomplishments. It’s his job to run the fucking country, and at that he did great.
It’s the media’s job to report the reality of what’s going on in government so people can make good decisions, by connecting the job performance to the public perception. At that, they have done an openly corrupt, dishonest, lazy, etc etc you get the idea they shit the bed way worse than Biden did at the debate, and they do it every day.
There is a reality of campaigning, and a legitimate sense in which the DNC and Democratic consultant driven campaign apparatus is awful and the GOP’s is pretty skilled. Honestly, their masterful corruption of the media is how we got to the state we’re in.
But hitting the fastest runner in the competition in the legs with a bat, and then saying it’s his job to win the race, after all, is kind of missing the point. Like yes you are right but there is an additional factor you are neglecting.
The sad part is that the answer is: Is there a young straight white male that is beloved by the electorate? That is why you see Newsom’s name thrown around, as the people democrats like more don’t play well to the racisit-sexist-bigoted but not fascist demographic that you need to win an election in the us.
So how do we answer this question in an analytical way that can be agreed upon by most or all factions in the party? Because right now I just see lots of people angrily shouting their totally unfounded opinions and assuming everyone who disagrees with them is insane or a shill. This type of dialogue is extremely unhelpful.
I will say that I do not know if Biden is the best person to beat Trump or if Harris is or if it’s someone else. But I think having the most unpopular incumbent in history who is struggling to mount a campaign makes it a reasonable question to ask.
If anyone has well-reasoned thoughts on this I welcome them but I really haven’t seen any serious attempt to answer this question yet. Perhaps it is unanswerable.
american culture frowns down upon talking about politics publicly so americans generally lack the necessary practice in engaging in meaningful political discourse; you’ll have to wait for a generations long culture shift to get your answer.
Of recent time. I remember decades ago sitting around and having polite, but argumentative discussions with people accross the political spectrum. It was really engaging when people still talked and thought about policy… instead of just people.
At this moment, with the Democratic convention just 39 days away, the only question worth discussing is whether Biden or Harris is the best candidate the Democrats have to beat Trump.
It is more likely that Trump will beat both when it comes to just focusing on winning.
The long-term goal should be to build a grass-roots third party so as to break the duopoly.
Dozens of us will continue to vote for that long-term goal.
Say no to MAGA and Blue MAGA.
We should focus our actions, time, and resources on Direct Action, Mutual Aid, and Community Outreach… No War but Class War!
Blue MAGA
It’s not even 8am and I’ve already read the dumbest shit I’ll see all day
I for real don’t get how they cannot see that it is just identifying the person saying it as a shill (if the rest of the message didn’t give it away somehow). Far far more that than any of the intended effect that it might have on the discourse
Idk, plenty of dumb shit has made its way into the discourse, so maybe I am the one that is wrong and if they just keep repeating it enough it will have some kind of intended impact. But I cannot imagine it working for them in a good way. It’s just too transparent and dumb.
Long term goals aren’t up for discussion; we need to win in the next few months, or we’ll face another existential threat. This idiotic shit could get people killed.
build a grass-roots third party
I 100% agree with this, but good fuckin luck with that when Trump is shooting protestors and elections are cancelled until further notice
That’s what I did in 2016 and now our system is trending towards a fascist dictatorship with zero checks and balances and outright contempt for voting and voting rights. Any long-term goal is still predicated on having a functional democracy, which is essentially what this election decides, so don’t make the same mistake of making a hardline rush to the finish line while ignoring the leopards waiting to eat your face
The long-term goal should be to build a grass-roots third party so as to break the duopoly.
Dozens of us will continue to vote for that long-term goal.
I’m not sure if you mean “vote for a third party in this election to move forward the long-term goal of a third party”?
The only thing that will help is getting rid of FPTP elections. If we could both (a) avoid fascism, and (b) ensure ranked choice or other voting actually is implemented for all elections, I’d weather a lot of pain for that long-term result. But between the two, of course preventing fascism is more important.
A third party won’t fix the issue, as long as you’ve got FPTP voting it’s gonna be a two horse race. You need the popular vote and you need proportional representation, and the only way to get those is by working from the ground up.
A third party isn’t an option.
Vote Blue and, when they win, primary the hell out of your local reps, replacing neoliberal candidates at every level. Get every progressive candidate you can, be it for president or dog-catcher.
Basically, do what the Tea Party and MAGA did to the Republicans. Change the party from within.
Caveat: we don’t want this last part to happen the same as it went down over in R camp because (simplified) the og grassroots tea party was terraformed by moneyed interests into the maga it is today.
I really don’t have a good idea on how leftists trying to build a coalition would respond to this continuing attack on our democracy in a legal way.
Moot point atm i suppose
That’s all I’m saying. That’s all anyone is saying.
Take ego and hubris out of the equation. Who has the absolute best chance of beating the fascists?
That’s it. That’s the only question that really matters right now in the context of this upcoming election, if we want to stop Trump.
yeah except democrats were so sure it was shillary, and then REFUSED the far better candidate in Bernie Sanders. Even if they came out tomorrow with someone, told everybody it was a lock, and the entire DNC fell in behind them, I still wouldn’t trust them to get it right.
But would you vote for them? No names, just generic Democrat.
course I would. But I’m uniquely aware of how catastrophically dangerous a second drumpf term would be. The average american may believe that we could survive a second term, much like we did the first, but that ignores the very real plans being enacted by drumpfs handlers. The US pulling out of NATO, or stopping aid to the Ukraine (which would 100% happen under drumpf) would mean WWIII, which is precisely what these right wing think tanks want. They see the expansion of US power after WWII as something worth repeating, even if it means having to go through a third world war. The rich and powerful always think they’ll be insulated from the war, which is why they aren’t as scared for it. They look at it much like the stock market, they’re trying to destroy the corporation of America so that they can buy up for cheap what’s left over.
Well good news. You’re not the only one. Generic Democrat beats Trump by something like 8 points in polling versus Biden losing to Trump.
It’s not the best argument; Generic Democrat has no personal baggage. I’m in favor of finding a better nominee (maybe even partially due to your advocacy), but unfortunately we can’t run Generic Democrat.
Yeah but if we let perfect be the enemy of the good then we’re going to ride this thing into the dirt.
I’m so sick of these articles and headlines about how Biden should step down.
DNC had years to figure this shit out and back another candidate, but instead we had seemingly rushed primaries with no real challengers. At this point with less than four months until the actual election, who the hell do they expect will be a better choice? Because nobody has stepped up to the plate, and for all the talk of how Biden should step down, there’s been no discussion of who should step up in his place.
Just fucking back the man, unify, and rally to convince people to get out and vote. Best case scenario, we get a functional Biden, who is known for his work ethic and general attitude of doing the job without platitudes or bullshit. Alternative not so good cases are we get a diminished Biden who isn’t effective at the job, but also isn’t a fucking fascist, or Biden dies of natural causes at some point and we get a partial term of Harris as president.
Shut up and read the article. You might have to do some critical thinking.
I did read it. But I’m not referring to just this article, but the dozens I’ve seen in just the past week. If the dems are convinced there’s a better candidate, actually convinced, we’d have a name by now. Literally anyone. But there’s been nothing. Just the step down discussion, with no discourse on who should be taking his place.
There’s been no names because they were giving Biden a chance to clear the scandal and watching to see the polls. This was never something that would resolve right away and now it’s around the time we’d expect to see someone being put forward.
Also, this is very clearly a party leader putting Harris’ name forward.
100% agree
The idea that some other strategy besides Biden might be better, as nutty as that sounds this late in the campaign, has quite a bit of merit. The idea that him resigning should come first, and figuring out and solidifying that strategy should come second, is clinically insane. Which is why outlets hostile to the Democrats are pushing it, which is why Democrats who have gotten confused into starting to back it themselves should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty sure that is the exact thesis of the article that dude is rudely insisting that you need to be reading.
The.article.doesn’t.matter since it’s always been a losing strategy to pivot to a new candidate. I’m thinking less Bernie/Clinton, and more Johnson/Humphries.
It’s still a binary choice: Biden or fascism. Frilly articles about what-if and “but his stammer” mean nothing when it removes down to the same binary choice.
I still haven’t seen anyone put forth a candidate worth throwing away Bidens incumbentcy advantage, Harris isn’t a great option
Gretchen Whitmer.
You’ve identified the issue yes
Kamala Harris is the only option that polls better than Biden, and she’s not a great option, no. I wish there were one that seemed like “oh that is the answer yes.”
I think - this is a completely serious statement - that Jon Stewart would be a great option. But because our political system is broken, we can’t do that.
Jon Stewart would absolutely win if he went for it, but he doesn’t want to. It sucks.
You have to read the entire section of the poll, not just the “supports candidate” part. The don’t know/undecided part grows in lockstep with the loss of support. While Trump maintains right around 40%. Which is a common phenomenon when people don’t recognize the candidate’s name.
A four month campaign is more than long enough to fix the name recognition problem and court the independents. The really important thing is generic Democrat beats Trump every time. That highly suggests Biden is hurting the campaign, not helping it and any recognizable Democrat will win this thing.
Its really not, because you gotta figure for hiring campaign staff, all the politicing behind the scenes, it SHOULD be as simple as run someone now and work that out later. But the Dems in charge think they’ll sruvive a second Traitor Trump term just as strongly and incorrectly as moderate voters
George Clooney
Most people engaged in politics have likely made up their mind, and anyone sufficiently disengaged will vote for the incumbent and be done with it. Biden is the incumbent, and they’re not going to put forth a progressive.
A travesty then, considering polling consistently shows progressives would wallop Trump, and the Dems claim that democracy is on the line this election. We could do so much better, but absolutely will not at the peril of capital.
Yeah
The race is not one people deciding between Biden and Trump, but people on both sides who have made up their minds deciding whether or not to vote
Coincidentally, there is an enormous effort to paint voting as not worthwhile, and Biden as not good enough to be worthwhile bothering to vote for, aimed at left wing voters
Actual left-winger here. We’ve been saying the USA deserves better than Biden since before the 2020 election. Don’t lump us in with the centrists, liberals, and moderates who’ve only just pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to notice that the incumbent is expected to lose.
There’s no point in starting to panic now, all this has been inevitable since the DNC won the right to rig their own primary after the disaster that was “Her Turn” in 2016. Either y’all start calling your DNC reps and demanding a better candidate, or start making preparations for the fascism and civil unrest in our future.
Highly infuriated with the Dems over Biden in 2020 BUT he has turned out remarkably better than I ever thought. He now has a decent track record that makes him a good choice for another 4 years. On the other hand, we could go all dictator/fascist and lose all democracy. It comes down to Joe Biden who is now the one hope to save democracy.
Take the bus that gets you closest to your destination folks. In the meantime, get progressives into offices at local and state levels so they can move up to congressional levels.Its good to know progressives will hold our country hostage rather than take baby steps to a progressive country.
My man he is not a progressive
Zero progressives I know IRL have any kind of idea like that Biden is mediocre implies it’s okay if Trump comes to power and takes a flamethrower to all progressive causes with impacts that will last as long as you or I are alive. It’s purely a thing I see online from self described leftists.
I wonder if I look back in their history, I will see lots of advocacy for marijuana reform or criminal justice or better foreign policy in Central / South America… or anything other than left wing causes that can be tied directly in immediate and lazy fashion back to Biden (economy, immigration, Gaza)
My man he is not a progressive
Correct. Your idea of a “progressive” is my idea of a “moderate centrist”.
Zero progressives I know IRL have any kind of idea like that Biden is mediocre implies it’s okay if Trump comes to power
I don’t think it’s “okay”, I think it’s inevitable. The DNC would rather lose to the Republicans than lose their campaign financiers (who also sponsor Republicans).
I wonder if I look back in their history, I will see lots of advocacy for marijuana reform or criminal justice or better foreign policy in Central / South America… or anything other than left wing causes that can be tied directly in immediate and lazy fashion back to Biden (economy, immigration, Gaza)
Not sure what kind of point youre trying to make here, all of the above are important issues and I’ve talked about them extensively on this and prior social media accounts. I’d have to dig into my dead Twitter account for receipts but I predicted the lack of enthusiasm for the “safe” incumbent Democrat causing Trump to win this year’s election all the way back in 2015 when the DNC decided that knocking Bernie off the ballot was more important than holding a democratic primary that was actually democratic. That the Dems would have to switch if they wanted to win has been as obvious as the fact that the incumbent won’t stand down unless forced to, an extremely unlikely proposition.
I predicted the lack of enthusiasm for the “safe” incumbent Democrat causing Trump to win this year’s election
You are in good company. Professor Allan Lichtman has a fascinating scientific approach for presidential elections. (it’s long but the first ten minutes will give you the idea).
Democrats look at the tiniest flaws rather than Biden’s popular policies.They do that because the voters do that
Yep, only wonks care about policy. To the average American, the election amounts to little more than a popularity contest.
-
I’m not a “Progressive”. American Progressives are called “Moderates” in most other countries, and their Progressives would probably call me a Communist or an Anarchist without bothering to distinguish between the two.
-
The people holding this country hostage are the ones who ran the only primary challenger out of the party rather than admit that the incumbent is expected to lose re-election.
-
America has to excise the fascist rot at its core before it can become a “Progressive” country. Voting alone cannot accomplish this, it would require a massive perspective shift across the general public on the scale of China’s cultural revolution. After Covid failed to induce anything but a shift to more work-from-home, I don’t see that happening.
-
The first baby step I’m focused on accomplishing is trying to convince liberals that if democracy is really at stake, then they can’t run the risk of trying to play it safe like they did in 2016.
-
Most people are just now waking up and paying attention while Biden’s numbers are beginning to climb, in spite of his own party trying to sabotage him.
Joe Biden is on track to win this election. Democrats are hell bent on snatching defeat from the mouth of victory.
Yes. Enormous efforts. “Genocide Joe” (the name) is part of that effort.
This is how effective psyops works.
There is one in this comments section
Just one? Are they a faux-commie?
There are a lot more now; it started out as one
I was more worried about it until I realized Lemmy is the only place I’d heard anyone say Genocide Joe.
It’s pretty likely that a lot of those disengaged will not vote for Biden because they know he’s too old
Vote blue no matter who died quickly I guess.
Those people are still voting blue. The issue is getting everyone else on board. “Vote blue no matter who” can’t carry the election entirely on its own and never could. 2020 was won on razor margins.
We need to get rid of the electoral college.
Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes. That it was “razor thin” is because of the electoral college.
Hillary lost to Trump despite winning the popular vote by 3 million because of the electoral college.
Gore lost because of Florida’s electoral college (and all the fuckery there) despite winning the popular vote by 0.5million.
I strongly agree with you but that’s not going to change the fact that we still have to contend with the EC this election cycle.
Edit: also gore didn’t lose by either metric he just didn’t stick it out for the recount
Small correction: after numerous recounts, it was proven decidedly that Gore had won in FL. However, the corrupt Supreme Court decided that since the media (Fox News) had already called the election for Dubya, that it would pose too much risk to our democratic process to overturn the results to the correct outcome.
This is most amusing given the context of Jan 6 and the corrupt court’s opinions on that matter, but here we are.
It would be enough to make an amendment so that the shape of electoral districts must be convex. This would make gerrymandering impossible.
How do you actually fit together exclusively convex shapes?
Anyone sufficiently disengaged with Biden might just NOT vote. And then Trump wins. Heres a better framing of the question. Could anyone generate more voter disengagement than Biden?
This is my worry too. They’re not going to switch to trump, they’ll either skip it or vote 3rd party.
they’re not going to put forth a progressive.
The corporate media would shred a real progressive but Biden is a lot more progressive leaning than I ever thought he would be.
Yeah, that’s part of why I’m so suspicious of this massive “Biden needs to be replaced” push. We’re not getting better policy out of it, and I seriously doubt it’ll hurt Trump’s odds at re-election, so why is everyone so keen on it at this stage? The time to replace him was months ago.
Exactly!
We have narrow margins these days. Elections are decided by the undecided.
Who are these undecided voters? I haven’t met one single undecided voter in the past 8 or more years. Maybe that’s geography, but, jeez…
I feel that turnout is a far bigger factor.
some of them are people like me who was forced to accept inescapable student loan debt (created by biden in 2005) due to don’t ask don’t tell blocking gays from getting the gi bill (supported by biden in 1993); couldn’t sponsor their life partner to allow them to stay in this country because biden et al. voted for doma in 1996; denied jobs because because biden advocated for the same thing executive order 10450 did until 2012; will lose a new job because of biden’s support for banning tiktok in january of 2025; and can’t get a new gig job because biden is blocking truly affordable EV’s from this country for the foreseeable future.
it’s got nothing to do with project 2025 nor trump being a giant douchebag; it’s about trying to convince myself to vote for someone with a conservative history that has and will fuck up my life and then pretending that he’s the most progressive president ever just to get votes while simultaneously enabling genocide’s, apartheid’s and segregationists as biden has done several times over in the last 51 years.
i need a reason to vote for him because; no matter how shitty trump or how badly he wants to steamroll over minorities (which biden has already done), he’s never fucked with my life to anywhere near the extent that biden has and i survived most of those 51 years at a time when both parties, plus moderates, plus family wanted to lock people like me up and throw away the key, so project 2025 doesn’t scare me and trump doesn’t have enough time to screw with my life to the same extent that biden did to people like me in one more term.
If you’re gay as you imply and you are thinking of voting trump you are basically bringing it down on yourself. Please switch on your brain
Fuck Trump
Does Biden have the best chance of beating Trump
The election is in ~3 months. Yes. Next question.
He’s much more unpopular than any previous president that won reelection, he’s literally unqualified for the job, he’s in a weaker position than when he BARELY won the first time and he’s refusing to change course on the main source of his discontent, his active and ongoing participation in a genocide and other war crimes committed daily.
No.
Next question: Will he be replaced by one of the 50 other Democrats who could beat Donald Trump (by his own estimate) before it’s too late?
I hope so, but probably not.
he’s refusing to change course on the main source of discontent, his active and ongoing participation in a genocide and other war crimes committed daily.
Voters simply don’t care about Gaza anywhere near as much as they care about literally everything else:
https://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-04/240415_Harvard_IOP_Spring_2024_Topline_Final.pdf
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24564257/240126-nbc-april-2024-poll-4-21-2024-release.pdf
https://news.gallup.com/poll/644570/immigration-named-top-problem-third-straight-month.aspx
It shows up in poll after poll after poll. With the exception of chronically online lemmings and less than 10% of Democratic voters, nobody else really cares.
Voters simply don’t care about Gaza anywhere near as much as they care about literally everything else
Well that’s a damning indictment of the American people if I ever saw one!
With the exception of chronically online lemmings and less than 10% of Democratic voters, nobody else really cares.
Yeah, it’s just the systematic slaughter of mostly defenseless civilians, specifically targeting aid workers, health workers and journalists, and also tens of thousands of children!
Just flagrant daily crimes against humanity, nothing you’d care about if you weren’t a chronically online Lemming! /s
You’re very much on the wrong side of history if you are indifferent to the many war crimes of Israel as well as the contributions of the US and other Western countries making it possible for them to continue in perpetuity.
Yeah none of that changes the fact that voters don’t care. Sorry people have different priorities than you, it seems like it really bothers you.
Yeah, it actually DOES bother me that some people don’t care about constant atrocities committed on helpless innocents. I’m kooky like that!
I wouldn’t think that Donald Trump levels of casual indifference towards the mass murder and systemic torture of fellow human beings would be the norm amongst Democratic voters, but I guess it either is or there’s something wrong with the methodology of the statistics you so gleefully present as redemptive of your Dear Leader…
Feel free to point out repeated, systemic flaws that might lead to that kind of consistent result. If not, I’ll just assume it’s because you simply can’t wrap your mind around the fact that voters have different priorities than you. Truth hurts.
There’s different priorities and then there’s a near-total disregard for the lives and well-being of fellow humans.
There’s disagreement on whether economic or social issues are more important. Whether foreign policy is important or only domestic issues really matter. Tons of room for legitimate disagreement there.
And then there’s being indifferent to some of the worst atrocities humans have ever submitted other humans to being perpetrated in your name using weapons paid for by your tax dollars and political cover by the politicians you have chosen to represent you.
If that doesn’t bother you, WHAT fucking does?
Even for the folks who are outraged by what’s happening in Gaza, letting trump win isn’t going to make the situation any better, and will likely make it significantly worse.
How big were the win margins in 2020 again?
How is that in any way relevant to my correction about “the main source of discontent”?
You said this:
Voters simply don’t care about Gaza anywhere near as much as they care about literally everything else:
[Links]
It shows up in poll after poll after poll. With the exception of chronically online lemmings and less than 10% of Democratic voters, nobody else really cares.
Yes I did. Your powers of observation are uncanny.
So again, what does the 2020 margin of victory have to do with the purported “main source of discontent” among voters, which isn’t borne out by polling data?
I didn’t say it was the main source of discontent. I just think that being able to win the election is the most important thing. It doesn’t have to be the “main” source to cause the problem we’re all talking about.
The Democrats can’t afford to lose even half of that 10%.
I didn’t say they could. I was correcting someone who indicated Gaza is “the main source of discontent” among voters, when in fact polling shows it is not. I didn’t say literally anything about the election or who’s likely to win, or what that discontent might mean in the future.
You asked how the electoral margins were relevant to the topic. I just answered your question.
Quibble about which issue is more important all you want, the DNC is already underwater on voter enthusiasm regardless.
Did you not pay attention to Frances election? Much shorter with much better outcomes. Maybe the year long election cycle is the problem driving turnout down in the US, which benefits republicans.
Biden has the best chance of NOT beating Trump (I fear). He cannot change and as a known commodity will not generate new enthusiasm. Trump has generated all the outrage and rejection he is going to get. No new information is going to change that.
Someone else is an unknown. What happens if we switch is unknown. It may lose. But we are losing now.
But it could grab a LOT of press attention, generate enthusiasm, and break up the logjam of conservatism that runs national politics.
The whole point is that this is not a “dicey” or desperate thing to do when we are fighting for democracy and freedom. It is the ONLY thing to do when you are sure your current course loses.
We have to win.
enthusiasm
It’s an interesting day when you get to identify a new talking point
Enthusiasm in this case would be turn out, actually getting butts out of seats to vote.
The existential threat that Trump poses no longer seems enough to motivate people to vote specfically against him. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the reduction in turn out by people who are not energized by Biden and aren’t afraid of Trump has been a thing this whole time, it’s not new.
Like literally the campaigns are targeting people to tell them not to vote at all, right? The fact that Biden is visibly spiralling gives those campaigns a lot of very effective ammunition imo.
Then again you got that x-ray shill vision.
the reduction in turn out by people who are not energized by Biden and aren’t afraid of Trump has been a thing this whole time, it’s not new.
Do you have numbers for this?
Like voter turnout numbers for Biden vs Trump or vs Democrats in earlier elections? All the numbers I have seen are in the opposite direction, which is understandable, because the voters unlike the media understand how catastrophically high the stakes are.
You see it referenced all the time as a bit of democratic dogma. There was even a meme about it that hit the top of all/active like a few days ago on Lemmy. I like how this article from April puts it:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/2024-turnout-apathy-biden-trump.html
It’s not necessarily true, let me be clear, but it’s an active assumption. Higher turnout benefits Democrats. A reduction in turnout due to voter apathy will directly effect the Democrats more than the Republicans. The current propoganda campaign are targeting Democratic voters apathy rather than trying to switch a “swing voter.”
This election will probably be at least as high as 2016, and like I think you are referencing, every election since 2016 had basically had record turnout over the last.
Imo this election comes down to the number of voters who are motivated by abortion and worries about the supreme Court, which is middle aged to older people, high percentage women, reliable voters.
He’s an interesting one that talks about the enthusiasm vs apathy of voters but doesn’t specifically turnout, which is against my interpretation. I struggle to understand the relevance of it in this context:
You see it referenced all the time as a bit of democratic dogma. There was even a meme about it that hit the top of all/active like a few days ago on Lemmy. I like how this article
Imma stop you right there
Yes, I am aware that it is a popular narrative in the media and on Lemmy. My question was, do you have numbers for it?
Because my assertion that it isn’t actually true, and people are saying it anyway, and that the discrepancy and the reasons for the discrepancy is an important fact.
Yeah I referenced two articles talking about it in multiple ways.
You acting like it’s a new thing that’s never been discussed was what I was referring too. It’s absolutely a thing! That’s a bit of goal post moving on your part to go from “wow I’ve never heard of this before!” To “I don’t think that’s status statically true.”
https://lemmy.world/comment/11132168
Like correct me if I’m wrong, this is you right? Are you also going senile?
Mozz sees anti-liberal conspiracies everywhere he looks.
Readily available for repubes to start yelling “democrats in disarray” “both sides are the same”. Hell, repubes don’t even have to do it. The mainstream media is already doing their bidding.
It’s crazy to see the difference in tone CNN and other major new outlets have adopted when talking about Biden, vs. how they talk about Trump.
With Biden it’s “What a national embarrassment, no way this man can lead in his current state, voting for him is nearly elder abuse and you should be ashamed of yourself.”
With Trump it’s “jeez get a load of this guy lol. He’s just so silly with the things he says, who would take him seriously about the crazy stuff? Might be worth a vote?”
The press is stupid
Political people, mostly on the conservative side, figured out long ago that if you just pushed hard a particular framing and narrative, the majority of the American political press would just kind of go with it as opposed to upset the herd by presenting a different framing. Once you’ve set the boulder rolling in one direction, you can just kind of let it go and it’ll follow the same path on its own. And they practiced the technique until they got really good at it.
A fun exercise to see it is to read an article, but flip the party and subject of the article to the opposite side. Like some gaffe that Biden made, say that Trump made it, or vice versa. The tone will seem wildly off kilter in this really unusual way.
They are pushing hard with a heavy sprinkling of whataboutism and fearmongering 24 hours a day, which they learned from the successful fascists. It is an approach that works well with for profit news, even the ones they don’t own.
Trying to push just as hard for something positive wouldn’t be as successful.
It’s because if they challenge the narrative at all, they get cut out of coverage in the future. Then the other for-profit media outlets have coverage they won’t have access to and they’ll lose viewership.
It’s why something like the BBC can push candidates like they can, because if you cut out the BBC then you’ve cut out any televised national coverage in the UK. Here if ABC decides to really go after a narrative then Republicans still have Fox, NBC, CBS, etc
