• John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Biden was going to lose to Trump and was dragging other Democrats down with him in the polls. What more did you need?

      • Fapper_McFapper@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        Walk me through this. Who replaces Joe with only 4 months left until the elections? It’s going to be vote blue no matter who again. Oh, would you look at that. Biden just endorsed Kamala Harris.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          72
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Not for nothing but four months should be plenty to do an election in. 24 hour news media has convinced you that it’s got to be a 2-year endeavor. In all honesty 2 months should be plenty. Four is fine. Our entire country would be much better off if election seasons were shorter.

            • tamal3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Smaller country, less money involved… but here’s hoping.

              Edit: I’m not sure why I’m being downvoted. Comparing the speed of the British election cycle to that of the US is mismatched. Yes, US elections are ridiculous and bloated, but that’s still the reality of them. Regardless, we’ll have to do things faster based on circumstances.

              • Triasha@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                France put together a winning left coalition in 2 weeks.

                How does the US being a bigger, wealthier, country mean we are weaker? I’m so tired of these arguments about what we can’t do. If Biden dropped out 2 weeks before November it would be a disaster. As it is, he is listening to the legitimate concerns of the people.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well, the US is literally the second-most populous electoral democracy and the third-most populous country in the world, so I say we’ll need some time.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The largest democracy takes around two months of campaigning and about six weeks for voting.

                  Population scales proportionately for both the number of voters and for number of people working on a campaign and number of people working at polling stations on election day.

                  And let’s be honest, it’s only a small number of states that Presidential campaigns actually focus on because of that whole Electoral College thing.

                  It’s just the US is accustomed to a long election cycle, that’s all. It’s not a necessity. It may not actually be a good thing as it allows time for bad actors to construct false narratives. Seems to just favour personality over policy.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            How does AOC know what the elites want? Does she spend a lot of time having conversations with the elites about which direction they want politics to go?

            • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              She says she was in those conversations with high profile Democrats who have expressed more concerns about their donors rather than about their constituents.

        • theangryseal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          I voted for President Not Trump twice, I’m very much motivated to vote for President Not Trump a third time.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s going to be vote blue no matter who

          So the same thing that’s been said to get people to vote for Biden in the first place?

          If the Biden campaign was mostly running on “Not Trump,” anyone they replace him with will also not be Trump.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            A lot of people just felt like it was time to trade in their Not Trump for a newer model Not Trump. Sure there were other Not Trumps we could’ve gone with a year ago, but those Not Trumps are no longer on the market. So we’re going with the best available Not Trump right now.

            This Not Trump isn’t in mint condition (but none of them are), but it has much better mileage and it has more acceleration and a better top speed.

            As is the case with all Not Trumps this one is a better choice than Trump. Obviously.

        • dank@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          Who cares if it’s Kamala? She’s not senile, she’s not Genocide Joe, and she’s not an unhinged fascist. She’s a shoe-in.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, of course he’s going to endorse her. Still doesn’t mean that delegates don’t decide after an open convention. If she can show the delegates she has what it takes then she earns it.

        • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          5 months ago

          Newsom is the only option with any chance of winning, but democrats aren’t even trying to win this election.

          • Bibliotectress@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            They’re clearly trying to win if they got so scared about polls they strong-armed Biden into resigning. The panic has pretty clearly set in. We’ll see if this works or not.

          • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I abhor Gavin Newsome and would only vote for him to replace Trump. There are almost zero things Gavin Newsome can do that any other candidate can do better. He’s a slimy, adulterous predator who is more concerned with being remembered than doing something memorable.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think you realize how much of a stink “California Governor” has in middle America.

            It’s bullshit. We should all be so lucky to live in a place like California, but fox News Propaganda has been working for decades convincing disengaged voters that Cali is a hellscape.

            I think Newsom would make a fantastic President, but I am not convinced he has the best chance to win.

          • dank@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Just about anyone can beat Trump. Now that we don’t have a senile old man holding us back, we’ll be fine.

          • Omega@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            5 months ago

            Harris or Manchin.

            Harris actually sounds pretty good when she’s talking politics. Her tough on crime past can give her a boost with moderates and centrists as well. She just has the weirdest mannerisms when trying to relate to people.

            Manchin has obvious appeal to centrists and moderates. His biggest issue is his opposition to climate change action. But other than that he’d be considered liberal by '90s standards.

            Newsom needs to go through the primary process to see if he can appeal to swing state voters. Because I’m not convinced he can win those margin votes that he needs.

              • Omega@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                5 months ago

                Manchin is a lot closer to a Democrat than a Republican. A LOT closer.

            • sudo@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              5 months ago

              Manchin is running as an independent Senator in 2024. Giving him the nom would be the biggest “fuck you” to their voters.

              Harris is the only logical choice. She’s not the best candidate but she can form coherent sentences and isnt surprising voters any more than Biden dropping.

    • braindefragger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I don’t see it that way at all. This seems like a great way to increase their votes. It’s not like they are going to lose voters who were going to vote Biden to begin with.

      • Fapper_McFapper@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s never about those that were going to vote for Biden anyways. It’s always been about the undecided voters. Don’t get me wrong, I hope you’re right.

        • braindefragger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s never about those that were going to vote for Biden anyways. It’s always been about the undecided voters.

          Right. That’s obviously the whole point.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah the reality is that Biden was 95% going to lose to Trump. Picking a new person is usially a huge risk, but in this case there wasn’t much to lose.

        As things stand right now, Trumps chances of winning just went down a bit. Worst case, they pick someone terrible with similar (non-)chances to Biden. Best case, they pick someone who wins.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’ve 100% thought through this. Harris takes over the Biden / Harris campaign war chest, and if Biden drops out now, the party can go into the align around Harris before the convention. And now we have 3+ months to get people hyped about not voting for an old white dude.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’ve posted this 5 times in this thread in the last 20 minutes. Take a moment to read your own link…

          Election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that there is “no credence” to the notion that the Democratic Party could not legally replace Biden on the ticket, as he is not the nominee yet – the nominating process generally takes place during the Democratic National Convention.

        • dvoraqs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          From the article you linked to:

          Election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that there is “no credence” to the notion that the Democratic Party could not legally replace Biden on the ticket, as he is not the nominee yet – the nominating process generally takes place during the Democratic National Convention.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Republicans are going to play every trick in the book, legal, moral, ethical or not. They will shout it at the rallies, take every opportunity to stir up shit on television (with help from Koch and Sinclair owned media) and you will hear every reason why the democratic nominee cannot be President. If Democrats find someone with a squeaky clean record and the Republicans can’t find anything truthful, they’ll fabricate it with ease. “Kamala Harris ate a moldy bagel in 2018 therefore she can’t be president.”

          The one advantage Democrats have at this very second, is that Republicans and Trump can’t use the media machine to pre-emptively smear any one person, since nobody knows who the nominee will be yet. Use this opportunity well and combat the “ahh confusion, somehow only Trump makes sense” narrative that will be sure to be floated.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            They’ll do all that no matter what. They already did that to Kamala Harris, in the last election. I’m sure they tried really hard to dig up shit on her but had to resort to making up shit.

            Basically all they fabricated was the same weak-ass birther bullshit they did to Obama (odd how it’s only non-white people they use that on, isn’t it?) which is now being spread again on Facebook as we speak.

            Intentionally mispronouncing her name, which they re-hashed in the RNC convention. Her name is literally consonent-vowel-consonent-vowel-consonent-vowel, not really hard to say so they just sound like morons when they do that.

            I guess they don’t like how she laughs?

            They lost that election. Their base likes the racist dog-whistles, but those are votes they have no matter what. Doing the same bullshit they did before loses them independents.

            Remember how a lot of Republicans voted for Nikki Haley even after she dropped out of the primary? It wasn’t a love for Nikki Haley, it was a dislike for Trump that motivated Republicans to vote for Nikki Haley in the primaries. After she dropped out. So there’s even Republicans that are open to voting for a woman with a South Asian background that the MAGAs like to intentionally mispronouncing her name.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          This only indicates the GOP does not want to be running against Kamala Harris.

          This is a good sign.