352
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
352 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19234 readers
2227 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This was always the danger of defending Biden's age, and why I never got the big push to do so.
Running shitty candidates because trump is even shittier just lowers the bar further.
Kamala's not great, but she's slightly under retirement age and isn't openly advocating for genocide, so compared to them she looks great, but pretending she's perfect is just keeping the bar lower than it needs to be
It shouldn't be a big deal to say a candidate is good enough to vote for, but isn't everything you want.
Happily, we now know it was wrong. At the time, there were concerns that only Biden, with his incumbent advantage and the need to win over midwestern voters ( as was the case four years ago, https://www.vox.com/2020/5/26/21264719/joe-biden-election-coalition & https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/3/21155150/electoral-college-2020-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-trump-wisconsin ) would be the only Dem who could beat the GOP's choice. And it's not like we could swap Biden out for someone else and then tag him back in if the new choice did poorly in polling and such.
Electability was such a huge concern in 2020 that we ended up in a competition between two old white men in the 2020 Dem primary.
Again, happy to know that this was wrong, but this is the line of thinking that was occurring back then.
Agreed, but also recall how greatly gerrymandering has affected this election. Of course you can't directly gerrymander the presidential election, but the gerrymandering of Congressional seats and State legislature seats, governorships, etc has had a trickle-up effect, essentially. (E.g. laws passed in the name of preventing voter fraud that make it harder to vote and reduce turnout, increasing the odds that a State will swing for the GOP in the presidential election, as per https://www.npr.org/2020/11/08/932880774/how-gerrymandering-efforts-fit-into-2020-presidential-election )
She's a much better candidate than Biden, and Biden was a much better candidate than trump or Hillary Clinton. It's been eight years, or closer to ten if you include the campaign season for the 2016 election. People are rightfully excited about Harris. You're absolutely right that we can do better, but this is the most excited I've ever been for a candidate. I was pessimisticly excited for Obama, but was afraid he wouldn't be able to win the general election.
But you're ignoring that she's not better than 2012 Obama, and definitely not better than 2008 Obama.
Like, everyone knows Hillary was a terrible candidate, we all know Biden was a bad one.
But Kamala being a decent candidate doesn't mean we can't be happy about that, or that we can't acknowledge reality about her.
She's not as progressive as the average Dem voter.
And until candidates start matching the Dem voter base, shit feels like trump always have a chance
If the DNC ran a candidate that matched their voter base, it'd be a landslide. Just a lot less money flowing thru the campaign and the DNC. The people running the party have different goals than the people voting for it