• Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    An aside, I hate that this was posted to twitter before it was posted to Biden’s own website or the White House’s website first.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would have been better if he did this last year, would have allowed for a normal primary, rather than the clustefuck that is going to happen over the next month.

      • Reyali@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Though even this delayed back out might be what the DNC wanted all along. Primaries in the last two elections showed there are a lot of people who want Bernie or other less-establishment politicians. By waiting so long, they basically get to name whomever they want without pretending they should listen to voters.

        “The only thing worse than bad leadership is broken leadership” is a quote from my favorite book, and I can imagine the DNC operating from this perspective. Campaigns and primaries would have broken up the party’s voters, and they might just be banking on whatever call they can make themselves.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      2020 was pretty close and Biden’s image hasn’t gotten any better and clearly wasn’t going to. He was never going to win.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you want lockstep unity you get to be fascist, too. Just like the republicans.

      The best thing about Dems and libs is their general inclusivity. We want to have everyone to have a voice and a place to exist in the government. Shared control over the direction of the country. We want to exist and have lives free of violence, prejudice and misogyny, among other things, and to be who we are. But that’s also a drawback. Every group has their special interest. That’s hard to work with. If they don’t feel that their special interest has been advanced in some way they tend to sit on their hands. Vote third party. Not vote at all. We have a LOT of people all pulling in slightly different directions at the same time.

      The republicans? They really have only one simple agenda, and that’s god, guns, and fuck the liberal agenda. And they show up to vote to do just that.

    • ralphio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      He dropped over 2 points to Trump since the debate and I doubt more public appearances from him were gonna help especially since he already committed to another debate. He’s outside the margin of error for winning any sunbelt state and losing everywhere in the rustbelt. It’s not impossible that he would have won but seems pretty improbable.

      • Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would have taken some big, unexpected developments for him to win at this stage. Especially after the failed assassination attempt invigorated and united Trump’s cult further.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        especially since he already committed to another debate.

        It’s actually the opposite problem. There’s wasn’t going to be another debate for Biden to potentially redeem himself. Trump wasn’t going to do with another debate with him to give him that chance, why would he? He didn’t debate anyone in the primaries, because he didn’t need to. He wasn’t going to give Biden a chance to prove “it was just a bad night.”

        But with Harris as the candidate, Trump has to do another debate or he’ll look weak. In the next debate Trump will look like the guy that’s too old. Which he is, just didn’t look that way next to Biden.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Down 3% is horrible. In swing states, he is losing even worse while Democratic Senators are polling up.

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just don’t understand this with a non-felon, non-rapist candidate. Biden and those Democratic Congressional candidates are running on the same platform.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems reckless, but the people who were pushing it were party insiders and big donors like George Clooney. I am not sure if it was a good idea, but I figure they must see things we don’t.

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, reading between the lines, something else is wrong with biden. His age wasn’t all that helpful in the current situation, and then he gets sick? If he has only Covid, then we were in for 2+ months of a foggy candidate who already had questionable levels of clarity. No, this is not reckless, this is trying to save the election from an almost assured trump win.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only recklessness I see is waiting til the 11th hour to read the writing on the wall. Someone posted in a different thread that Biden even stated in 2019 that he was only going to run a single term. The party leadership has had 4 years to choose a proper successor but chose party over country instead.

        • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Someone posted in a different thread that Biden even stated in 2019 that he was only going to run a single term

          He didn’t. He said he saw himself as a transitional candidate, but never outright said single term.

    • Bye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Literally any straight white man center-right democrat born after 1968 would wipe the floor with trump.

      And before anyone jumps down my throat, that’s not what I want. I want president Cortez. But presidents are chosen by money and by about 10,000 generically stupid swing voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

        • Montagge@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Half of America lost it’s mind when Obama was elected, and we’re still dealing with the fallout from that lovely dose of racism. There’s no way Kamala could win in this country.

          • Qkall@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            like all that aside, a lot of folks aren’t appreciative of her background as a cop… but yeah that’s a cherry to what you already mentioned

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              And a lot of swing voters will probably like that she was a prosecutor, a “law and order” type.

                • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  She aint “black” as much as “brown.” Its an incredibly stupid hair to split, but indians are generally considered a “model minority” by racists, so it will likely hurt her but not as much as you may think.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Obama won. And then won again. Stop pumping up the reactionaries as some unstoppable force. They’re a minority and have been on a long term losing streak.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Harris is in, she can use the money already donated. Otherwise they have to start from scratch.

          So it’s almost guaranteed Harris will be in. Who they pick for VP is the question.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, they don’t. The Democratic Party can give the donated money to whoever is the candidate. Not sure where people are getting that.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The $100 million warchest belongs to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the Democratic Party. They are separate organizations, and Biden/Harris only answers to Biden and Harris.

              The DNC has its own funds of course, but nowhere near as much. And DNC funds are supposed to be shared with multiple Democrats, not just the one running for president.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                And notably even if Biden/Harris were supporting the alternative, they’re an outside group. They can spend like a super PAC, but can’t pay bills or do direct advertising.

            • mrlavallee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The money Biden has raised directly however can only go to the people that were on his ticket at the time the donation was made

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s correct, but nearly none of the money is the direct donation stuff - it’s almost in PACs which are (due to a legal fiction) entirely independent of the candidate.

                • mrlavallee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are still more restrictions however on spending on other candidates and they would have to act like any other PAC, only helping via donating/running ads in support of (but importantly not directly by) any other candidate.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              On the one hand: “you can’t have her she’s ours!”. On the other, she’s out in 26 regardless, and she’s pretty good so maybe we can share with the rest of the country.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I find this so insane. People talk about who gets to keep the money, who has which rich asshole routing for them, which strategy has been successfull in the past, like always setting up the current president for reelection…

            We need to focus on who has actually inspiring policies and ideas. We need to focus on these, because that is what the Reps lack. All they offer is “not the Dems” while the policies they propose are actually unpopular with many of their base. And the whole “Not Trump” strategy of Biden just fell apart.

            Is there noone in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?

            • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is there no one in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?

              This is why I think Pete Buttigieg should throw his hat in if they do have a primary. He just had a Bill Maher interview that just went viral because he knows how to talk to the common people. I think his visions are inspiring, he’s done a lot of work for his department, and he isn’t afraid to walk across party lines and go on Republican shows to talk about the real problems. He’s smart enough to smash Trump in a debate, calling out all his lies, and even if Trump is too scared to debate him, he has no problem laying out Trump’s lies elsewhere coherently and cognitively.

          • Qkall@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I just don’t think she can beat big orange. I’m not saying she shouldn’t … but I don’t know … doubtful

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              He was a prosecutor for years, so she has plently of oratory chops, and shes 20 years younger than trump to boot.

              Her only liability is the she is a she and there are plently of sexist fucks out there. Thats it.

              • ALQ@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You forgot that she’s a POC and there are also tons of racists fucks out there.

                Even before getting to her actual credentials (some great, others really not), people will be assholes. I still have hope that she, as a former prosecutor, could mop the floor with the fascists.

            • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              July 11th poll:

              Americans divide 46-47% between Biden and Trump if the election were today, almost identical to a 44-46% ABC/Ipsos poll result in April. Among registered voters (though there’s plenty of time to register) it’s an absolute tie, 46-46%.

              Were Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, vote choices are 49-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults (and 49-47% among registered voters). Harris’ 49% is slightly better than Biden’s 46%, although she doesn’t have a statistically significant lead over Trump.

              Also possibly key:

              Both candidates [Biden and Trump] face a high degree of scorn. About 4 in 10 Americans say neither has the mental sharpness or the physical health to serve effectively, and as many say neither is honest and trustworthy. Sixty percent say Trump is too old for a second term, also a new high, up from 44% in spring 2023. And in a sign of the nation’s political polarization, 50% say that given his debate performance, Trump should step aside in favor of another nominee – although, in contrast with Biden, very few of Trump’s own supporters say so.

              • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You can expect Harris’s numbers to drop given she’s vulnerable to almost every criticism Biden was except age and the fact that the Trump campaign has already been preparing to attack her.

        • fossilesque@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t particularly like her, then again I detest nearly all politicians. That being said, I’m more motivated to vote, that’s for certain. I didn’t mind Biden, but it felt like elder abuse lol. He’s been better than anyone in my lifetime. Good God, I’d rather have her than Hilary as the first woman in the spot. Biden was just had to watch and that position needs someone that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions in office. Will be curious to see who else puts their name in. 4 years ago he said he wouldn’t run again and he seems to be keeping that promise too.

      • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Senator Mark Kelly, he can do this

        He flipped AZ to blue

        He is an astronaut, all American, former servicemen

        He can get red votes and blue alike

        • ALQ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hmm…not bad. Not amazing name recognition, but that could be remedied.

          Having Gabby campaign for/with him, especially after the DJT assassination attempt, could be beneficial, too. (Or could look like a disgusting political plot, but that’s really all our politics.)

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Kelly or Mayor Pete seem like the best options.

          Buttigieg and AOC ticket? That would be the youth candidacy. Kelly and Buttigieg or vice versa would be more centrist but probably be the most robust candidacy.

          I hate to say it, but in this political climate and with the threat of Trump, the best shot is probably two young-ish white guys.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I highly doubt Kamala will want to pull a sitting Democratic senator away from the 50/50 Senate given the elections coming up.

          I think there is a greater chance that she picks one of the governors. My pick is J.B. Pritzker.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Damn that would be a great pick. I’d like to see AOC but Kelly probably has more broad appeal with all the things you mentioned.

      • nl4real@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This late in the game, it’s almost certainly Harris. Probably picks a swing state governor like Whitmer or Shapiro.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or Mark Kelly. Regardless, it’s probably going to be a white male from a swing state to appeal to as broad of an electorate as possible.

  • nexusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    From my European point of view, i just hope she picks Kelly as her VP. A progressive Astronaut, Ambassador for UNITED24 and someone that knows that we should save us from the ultimate climate collapse…maybe we can get Alexander Gerst here in Germany to do some politics :D

  • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bernie 2024, even if he dies of a heart attack first day his appointments would change the country for good and I don’t trust any party politicians on Palestine.

      • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn’t that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?

        • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn’t vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.

      • John Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seeing AOC oddly shill for Biden before he dropped out… which I’d expect from Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff, but not from her. She may actually be trying to get the VP spot.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.

          AOC was “shilling” for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I’m betting she will continue with the same intent.

          • TipRing@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for “party disunity” if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Biden was going to lose and he was making other Democrats lose. What did you expect the party to do, unite behind losing to Trump?

            AOC was prob smart, saw Biden didn’t believe he was going to lose and saw an opportunity before it played out.

        • revelrous@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Imo she’s trying to shield progressives from being the scapegoat, like how we got the blame for dem dysfunction in '16.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they’ve accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.

          Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.

          So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Biden has seriously hurt the party. If they enthrone Kamala without doing some balanced process to have her debate or compete against anyone else, and she somehow beats Trump then… I fully expect Republicans to take the House & Senate because of the damage Biden did to the party.

            Politics is about compromise. I fully agree with you on that. To get things passed, you actually have to call up Republicans and ask them if they’ll try to work with you and what their vision is, and what they’d like to do… and try to come to an agreement.

            AOC has likely done the same here. She saw an opportunity to get something or to help progressives in some way, which required taking a backseat for a little while, but ultimately she’ll get something in return. I get it and understand that. It was just surprising.

            The DNC & Clinton seriously damaged the Democrat party in 2016, and Biden has restored some consistency, but it shifted significantly the right after that. Lest not forget Biden gleefully supporting a genocidal maniac and sending weapons to kill thousands of children. Its pretty sad when Democrats argue that more children would have died under Trump, so that somehow makes it okay.

        • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is hilarious because Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff were all against Biden continuing in the race…

          AOC understands politics and thinks things through, that’s it.

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            AOC has always been considered an outsider to Democrat leadership. She prob was thinking things through, but I don’t think it is because she thought Biden was going to win.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden’s support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.

          Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.

          • John Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Biden bros: No one has a plan if Biden drops out. Everyone else: Here is our plan. Biden bros still: No one has a plan if Biden drops out.

            Plan was open convention where delegates decide.

      • Gerudo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hot damn I had forgotten about a new vp pick in the middle of all this. AOC won’t be it but needs to be.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        that would be great, but there’s no way they double down on minorities and women in the same ticket. get ready for a biden jr as the VP.

      • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.

          • dandelion (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama’s ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.

            Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among “center-right” voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Biden just endorsed Kamala, so that much is likely. The VP will probably be one from a shortlist of 5 or so governors/senators from swing states.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That’s one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle…

          • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The shortlist I’ve seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I’d call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think bernie could wipe the floor with any sitting senator of any age he comes up against but with bidens age and recent performance there is no way you will convince everyone with bernies age factor.

  • VanillaBean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welp they must have looked at the data and saw Kamala or someone else would do significantly better. Hope they’re right.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s basically 50/50 with either Biden or Harris at the top of the ticket. Everything is in the margin of error, and polling has been notoriously inaccurate with Trump on the ballot.

      So you have to basically ignore the simple Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Harris or (Trump vs. anyone else you can think of) numbers because it’s pretty much unknown. But the data says a majority (even an majority of Democrats) want someone other than Biden on the ballot at election. BTW a majority of voters also want someone other than Trump on the ballot too.

      There’s also some data to suggest Trump is making some inroads with young male Black and Hispanic voters. Harris will negate a significant amount of that immediately and potentially even more when the GOP can’t resist blowing their racist dog whistles and show voters who they really are.

      So it’s kinda about looking at the data, but I think a large part of it is simple campaign facts. In times past a Presidential candidate would do two (sometimes three) rallies in two different states per day. And do interviews while traveling between campaign events. Trump isn’t capable of that pace. Biden most certainly isn’t capable of that pace. Harris can do that. We really haven’t seen a 100% balls to the wall presidential campaign in a while because it’s been two old guys in the last election and in this one… until now.

      Remember Biden also had to do the job of being President of the country while also campaigning. That’s a lot of work for even someone young, and Biden is so very old. Sure Harris is VP, but that’s mostly just getting some briefings (too keep up on events in case she might need to take over as Prez) and breaking ties in the Senate (which probably won’t be needed between now and election day). She can devote almost all of her time to campaigning while Biden couldn’t.

    • TechAnon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope so and if true we have to trust the data. My vote is solid blue based on virtues and most policies. There’s probably a lot of others like me.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/21/open-convention-democrats-biden-drop-out/

    “How Democrats would pick a new candidate if Biden drops out, step by step”

    One [possibility] is a virtual vote that would lock in a new nominee in early August, and the other is an “open” convention, a scenario the party hasn’t experienced since 1968.
    A convention is open when no candidate arrives with a clear majority of delegates, so the event turns into a mini-primary in which contenders scramble to persuade delegates to vote for them.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. It’ll be Harris. Biden endorsed her and already other potential Dem front-runners are endorsing her. Within in a few days it’ll be like she’s the incumbent and no one will want to run against her for the same reasons they didn’t run against Biden. Plus the additional reason that they don’t want to screw up their chances of being her VP pick.

    • Rayspekt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dumb question. Why didn’t they just schedule the convention prior to all deadlines regardless who runs for office? Is there any benefit to meeting so late?

      • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is before the deadlines but just barely. Typically the candidate is known before the convention, so you already have enough signatures to get on the ballot in every state

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It wasn’t when they scheduled it. It was after Ohio’s deadline. And major parties don’t need signatures to put forward candidates.

    • cerement@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      a scenario the party hasn’t experienced since 1968

      because the 1968 Democratic Convention went swimmingly – oh, they’re also holding this year’s convention in Chicago again you say? with increased police presence as well?

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, at least there isn’t anything controversial going on overseas that’s got the college kids riled up this time /s

    • keyez@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      And possibly hello convicted felon, rapist, racist, Putin/Orban boot licker, veteran hater, who has had everyone remotely competent who’s previously worked for him leave and say what a horrible person he is to the presidency elect. Or sorry does that not rhyme as well?

      • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Biden was going to lose to Trump. So from both a moral and pragmatic perspective, it’s good he’s gone. You might be pro-bombing Palestinian children, you do you, but if you want a Dem president, this is the only way. It just so happens to also be a referendum on Biden’s zionism.

        • keyez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m pro cease fire and don’t claim to know much on the topic, but neither side is doing the right thing from reports and what I’ve heard. This one moniker to show how bad Biden is is just so lazy and misinformed since nobody who will get elected on either side is going to do the right thing but please keep posting that on all Biden threads you seem to be an expert we can all learn from.

          • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re not pro-ceasefire if you think this is a “bothsides” issue. Israel has all the power. You know how you can tell without being an “expert”? Just look at the skeletal, starved, mutilated bodies of the children in Gaza and compare it to what’s going on in Tel Aviv. Go look at the images from Gaza and try to tell me with a serious face it’s “bothsides”.

            No. Joe is a genocide supporter, and so are those who make excuses for him.

            • keyez@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not making excuses for him but guess I see no betterment if repugs are in charge again, Ukraine situation will probably get worse as well, and I’m more worried about what more will happen with a project 2025 riddled future and stripping away of regulations and further ignoring of climate change and action. I am well aware of what’s going on in Gaza and it needs to stop, but I know which devil will be a major net worse for the future of humanity and I’m going to vote against that future which is a blue vote.

              • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not making excuses for him but guess I see no betterment if repugs are in charge again

                No one wants the republicans in control. But voters committing to the game of chicken that Biden himself started with his own constituency was necessary to get him to step down. Like with a bully, if you never stand up for yourself they just keep abusing you again and again. That’s neoliberal democrats to their base – they’re bullies to their own voters.

                The threat to their power needed to be credible, people needed to show that they were ready to just let them take us over the cliff if that’s where the Democratic establishment was going to take us, and it worked.

                Biden is not a good human being. He’s a narcissist and a child killer. There’s no reason to show him any respect or deference now that he’s stepped aside. In fact people should continue to loudly proclaim the genocide as his legacy, to make it clear to the party leadership that supporting genocide is an electoral liability, not something you can force down people’s throats.

            • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Trump is Bibi’s bestie. There is absolutely no way on Earth he would do a damn thing to end the genocide. In fact, he’ll happily cheerlead it, without even the token hand-wringing we get from Biden.

              Hell, I would say Biden was the better candidate from a pro-Ceasefire stance, since, at the very least, he is vulnerable to pressure from the left to push for a ceasefire. Trump is not.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, and now we don’t have to choose between genocide hard and genocide light. Harris (or whoever) can come in with a generic pro-peace two-state message rather than defending the decision to send Israel big bombs for months. He’s off the ticket, you don’t need to argue that he’s bad but better than Trump anymore. The new candidate can just be not a genocide supporter.

              • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Trump and Biden are both pro-genocide, yes, though Biden should be held accountable by democrat standards, not republican ones. It’s about the party principles in terms of those too, Biden had to pay a price for his fanaticism.

                But I was talking about Israel and Palestine/Gaza.

                • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But I was talking about Israel and Palestine/Gaza.

                  Who did you think I was talking about when I said Trump was Bibi’s bestie?

                  For future reference, Bibi is Benjamin Netanyahu. And if you don’t know that, you should probably educate yourself a bit more before talking about Israel and Palestine/Gaza.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                In what way is Biden vulnerable to pressure from the left? What are they going to impeach him? The party hasn’t listened to those of us on the left in decades.

          • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            She at the every least had the decency to distance herself from Joe’s fanaticism when he started giving his full-throated support for the genocide. She’s still culpable, but represents a step in the right direction, away from right-wing extremism.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        All this is true and Biden was still projected to lose to him, which says a lot about who the party leaders are grooming for the office. You should direct your anger at them not the people who’re having these terrible candidates foisted upon us. Imagine if they’d actually picked a likeable candidate back in 2016 and relegated Trump to the simple laughing stock that he is.

        • keyez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was volunteering and telling everyone I knew to vote Bernie in 2016 for the primary but the DNC fucked everyone by just casting him aside. Because of that I didn’t vote in 2016 and multiple things in my life got demonstrably worse right in front of my eyes and I’m not making that mistake again.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Israel is a client of the US, not vice versa. Turkey occupies the same geographic space. The propping up the Israel is an ideological policy by the right-wing, not a meaningful geopolitical one for our nation.

        • Perfide@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is your point? Trump is even more gung-ho about supporting Israel than Biden was, and whoever replaces Biden will certainly take his stance on the issue. There is no pro-palestine candidate even in the conversation.

          • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What is your point? Trump is even more gung-ho about supporting Israel than Biden was

            No, I’m rejecting this notion outright. Nothing about what we see in Gaza indicates that Biden is any less “gung ho” about the slaughter. Israel is operating without limits. Basically everyone in the democratic party, whether they are pro-Israel or not, is still to the left of Biden on the issue. Even Harris pretty deliberately distanced herself from Biden on this because even she saw how bad this was going to be.

            Biden is being forced to step down in no small part because his zionism has made him unelectable. The polls in Michigan that just came out were quite literally the straw that broke the camels back here. Whether Dems continue being pro-Israel or not, the lesson from the Biden presidency is still that voters have a hard limit.

    • VanillaBean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lmao wait until Trump gives Netanyahu the green light to erase Palestine. Got what you wanted I guess. Hope you are prepared to do some more protesting, oh wait he will probably throw you lot in jail or deport for protesting unlike Biden. Reap what you sow.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Netanyahu already got the greenlight. Anyone who’s been paying attention to what’s happening in Gaza would know that.

        There is no difference between Trump and Biden when it comes to their support of genocide. Biden is not more “moderate”, he’s fully onboard and has provided everything Netanyahu needs to continue his war crimes. The difference is Biden is a democrat, which means that he needs to be held to democrat standards, not republican ones. If he’s not then the party is functionally the same as the GOP and pretending there’s a difference is pointless.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have no idea what genocide actually is.

          What you’re seeing is the results of a war.

          A few months ago Kamala Harris met with the families of those that are still being held hostage by Hamas. So has Joe Biden. They might understand what’s happening a little better than someone that spends their free time looking at photos of mutilated children on the internet.

          There is some hope that now that Biden isn’t seeking re-election he can do more to make a deal happen to get the hostages released which will end the current iteration of this conflict. So you’ll have to find another place to find photos of mutilated children that you can pretend to be angry about.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember being young and naive and thinking everything in the world was simple, easy and black and white.

      One day you will grow up and see how foolish shortsighted you are being.

    • MaXimus421@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You must realize that just like Reddit, this sub is far left leaning. It’s pointless to post anything that goes against the echo chamber.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.worldBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The left is not in support of Israel. While it’s true that there isn’t much of a MAGA/nazi element on Lemmy like on Reddit, there is a fairly large neoliberal demographic. As well as a growing contingency of Israeli, Russian, and Chinese bots as those groups realize that Lemmy is growing as reddit continues to wane.