this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
269 points (87.1% liked)

World News

32075 readers
1287 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 109 points 2 months ago (89 children)

Biden is well past his prime, had a shitty performance last night, hate his record on Israel, but I’m still voting for him because he’s not Trump and I’d prefer that our representative democracy continued. Moving to a braindead, functionally illiterate dictatorship just seems like an all-around worse move in every respect. Not sure about his chances, but whatever, there’s not really any other alternative at this point.

load more comments (89 replies)
[–] Vaggumon@lemm.ee 92 points 2 months ago (9 children)
[–] Grunt4019@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If Biden dies and his tombstone is running for president, I’d still vote for his tombstone over trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 70 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Trump would only win if the Democrat party found someone seemingly more inept than him.

I am impressed that the Democrat party managed to present not one, but two outstandingly incompetent candidates. In a row. That's some bottom of the barrel advanced scraping techniques right there. They even managed to get a representation of both sexes.

I'm sure Mr. Biden will be terribly distraught, as soon as he is able to understand what's happening around him at the moment.

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 56 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The Democrats are still stuck in this post-Clinton seniority mindset where they unofficially pick a candidate before primaries even begin, based on who has been around the longest and who has held the highest position. Remember "it's her turn"? Yes, yes, I know it didn't work against Obama, but heading into the debates everyone assumed Hillary would be the candidate until Obama put on the better show. More to the point, I think Obama breaking through scared the establishment Dems into doubling down on primary fuckery. See what happened to Bernie, twice. So now we have a president who knows all the right people but plays politics with the 1990s rulebook and has a terminal case of crusty old man voice.

Still better than Trump.

[–] MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago

Obama has absolutely absurd charisma. He's the Democrat version of Trump - knows exactly what to say to his base and knows how to convince moderates he's not insane.

Clinton and Biden have the charisma of a limp noodle. Sanders has absurd charisma, but he's seen as too big of a threat to Democrat lobbyists and big corporations.

Sanders would've mopped the floor with Trump because he would've actually been able to grab the 18-44 demographic (which last saw peaks in 1992 Clinton/Gore and 2008 Obama/Biden, both to unseat a Republican and, coincidentally, a Bush).

Sanders would have been able to avoid the collapse in turnout from working-class Black people in 2016.

Sanders would've stopped the increasing right-wing radicalization of the youth of America, or provided a counterweight for left-wing economic radicalization.

The US federal elections are basically a pony show and the DNC doesn't know how to play the game without throwing out their playbook.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 67 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You know it is pretty bad when a bunch of CNN commentators think he got smoked.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Beastlygr@lemmy.world 53 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 51 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (56 children)

No. We're "un-fucked".

We cant win with Biden.

We CAN win without him.

Finally the dense mother fuckers who have been denying Biden's inadequacy have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

We'll have a brokered convention (like all conventions before 1970's), we'll get "generic corporate democrat", and they'll be instantly polling in the low to mid 50's and we'll actually have a fucking chance.

Biden has had no chance at winning this election at any point in his candidacy. Ever. Look at the polling. Look at the data. He's never stood a chance and plenty of people here and elsewhere have been trying to get this through some extremely thick skulls that have basically been insisting that we need to run an un-electable candidate.

Well the goose is cooked. The rat is out of the bag. Here comes the moose or whatever. He's done. Adios Biden, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You did fine on some stuff but wow you fucked up on Gaza/Israel.

Minutes after that debate Newsom was on MSNBC. We're gonna get Newsom, or maybe Inslee; a way smarter choice would be Witmer or Andy Beshear.

And guess what? Litterally ANY GENERIC CANDIDATE PUTS 10 POINTS BACK ON THE BOARD.

Bam. Switch candidates and Democrats are instantaneously back in this race.

[–] classic@fedia.io 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not only switch candidates, but have Biden have the humility to back that person. Do it in the name of Democracy, you know: this election is too important and I realize we need a stronger candidate than I can be. That would sell well, and that's what's needed for better or worse: a good narrative

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] xhieron@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (7 children)

This probably doesn't work, and it's probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we're coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.

If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.

A few reasons:

  1. Newsom probably doesn't want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he's not going to want that loss on his record since he's already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.
  2. Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She's a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she's also the most attached to Biden. That's both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.
  3. The truth may be that the party would rather just let Trump win. That sounds unthinkable, but this isn't a secret cabal of idealists we're talking about: it's a bunch of self-interested rich people who want to put themselves in power. Getting them to do anything for the public good is difficult under the best circumstances. They could easily decide--rightly--that Biden is still their best shot at beating Trump. That was the call in 2020, and it paid off. Don't forget that many of these same names being batted around now were active in the party four years ago. Newsom loses to Trump, and he's largely seen as the best alternative. If you're running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning. You might decide it's just a lost cause and start planning for a four year long nightmare.
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (54 replies)
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 50 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How to throw an unlosable election

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (22 children)

It was never unlosable. People have forgotten how bad Trump was and blame everything on Biden. It's been an uphill battle.

Although I still think he should have stepped aside for someone with less baggage.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago (11 children)

As bad as Biden was, CNN were worse. Fuck that shitty network for allowing Trump to lie pretty much nonstop for 90 minutes unchallenged.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] exanime@lemmy.today 45 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Actually, the other way around. We keep on compartmentalizing, Trump can lie all he wants and nothing happens, but Joe stutters and it's a national disgrace... How can you compare one without including the only alternative?

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Republicans accept a post-truth society where everything is someone's propaganda, that the federal government is out to get them and that the union would be better served as a union of state-level republics. Democrats still believe in the existence of a ground truth and want a union with centralized control (i.e., they are Federalists). Like the Federalists, the Democrats are backed by wealthy financial states (New York, California) as opposed to more rural/working-class states (Alabama, Ohio) and support heavy industrial subsidies (Biden's IRA, CHIPS) as well as weak state governments.

This is a fundamental difference that explains a lot, actually. The role of government has always been to convince populations to pursue the policy goals of the elite. The foundations of representative democracy involve choosing which elites' policy goals to follow. The Republicans want to follow state elites (to borrow a Chinese proverb, the mountains are high and the President is far away). The Democrats want to follow federal elites.

Here's the real problem. The US gets to choose between a career politician and a career businessman (swindler, by definition). Who represents the working class? Who represents the people who actually built America's economy?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JimVanDeventer@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago

When Jon Stewart referred to Biden's expression as resting 25th amendment face. 💀

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

alarm bells?

wait they didn't know he was old before this debate?

[–] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Apparently millions of people during the 2020 primaries didn't math long enough to realize Biden would be 86 years old after two terms.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I distinctly remember that before I left Reddit, I had some lovely discourse with someone who was absolutely inconsolable over my opinion that Biden was too old for the job. Got called ageist and everything else they could think of.

Trust me, I hate being right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 months ago

We told you back in November but no one listened.

load more comments
view more: next ›