I confess that I really like this idea - in theory Harris would then be able to become the only president other than FDR to hold more than two full terms.
But yeah, Biden's not that bad. Idea good, premise not.
abff08f4813c
joined 2 months ago
On that last point - I'm moving to the view that you're right - it is a losing strategy.
As another commenter in this thread pointed out, https://lemmy.world/comment/13326761 , it's the economy that was the biggest factor. That will always shift wins to the opposing party.
This tells me that a) 2024 might have just been unwinnable, as the economy really really sucked due to factors out of the control of anyone in the USA (Ukraine war still having devastating impacts on the US economy today).
But it also suggests that if we still have all the same elections that we expect to in 2026 and 2028, then Dems would be able to make a major comeback without changing much as this idiot trashes the economy. Alas, that feels like a really big if right now, and it shouldn't be.
Where did the two of you go? And more importantly, how did you do it?
How come? And would you leave once you're able to?
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Funny where you cut off the part where I list some of the other reasons. I'd agree that it's obvious that people have all sorts of reasons for choosing a candidate, but what didn't compute for me is why someone who would be more progressive - or even just pro-Gaza - would support the anti-progressive who wanted to let Israel's prime minister "finish the job", so to speak.
This is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to explain it.
Well, it can be worthwhile explaining it anyways sometimes. Often I've seen two people who actually agree but keep arguing because of semantics or the like, but if it's all laid out plainly then these tend to quickly come to an agreement. Other times, it's useful just to see how far the "wavelengths" are apart, as you put it.
For the record, Clinton wasn't progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don't watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it's great outreach).
But I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Here's a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It's just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.
Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it's right, then I think it's enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can't be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).
There's a really good repost at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 which shows that actually turnout was higher where it mattered almost across the board, though alas it also doesn't cite a reference or source for the numbers. (Remember though that even an extra 81 million votes for Harris in California wouldn't have made a difference in the EC, but split 15 million Dem votes evenly across the seven swing states, and Harris would have won.)
This suggests that there wasn't much of a depression of turnout - perhaps only in the safe blue states, which wouldn't have been impactful.
Of course that's based on an estimate, or guess, on how the total popular vote count will turn out, which is still unknown. We'll see, I guess.
You're right about being able to get voters to switch back to blue. But that's what puzzles me - why did they switch from blue to red in the first place?
But actually you answered this already - it's the age old "it's the economy, stupid." Maybe this was unavoidable then? Biden and his Dem replacement would have always taken the hit on the economy no matter what. The only one eligible to run who might have been able to avoid that stain would have been Sanders.
There are lots of good places to go to. But as it's quite hard - and expensive - to live as a tourist forever, the hard part is getting into one of these on a more permanent basis.
I was wrong. It was actually much darker than I thought possible.
For posterity, here are a couple of links that talk about this in depth,
https://forward.com/opinion/668440/miller-trump-madison-square-garden-immigrants/
As far as I can tell there's been no communication from him for several months and not since he posted saying he'd turn kbin.social over to a new admin.
But the domain for kbin.social was recently renewed (I posted full details over at https://fedia.io/m/fediverse/t/1403334/Any-updates-on-kbin-social-recently ) which gives me hope that ernest is still around, just a bit more behind the scenes.
Of course, it could also be that the domain was simply auto-renewed (as described in https://www.godaddy.com/en-ca/help/turn-my-domain-auto-renew-on-or-off-41085 ). I think some registrars or services even offer prepayment options for auto-renewing, meaning that ernest might have set this all up before he disappeared, rather than slowly reappearing now...