politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I don't think the opinion "the man who has control of the nuclear arsenal is showing signs of senility and should not serve another 4 years regardless of who replaces him" is not an unreasonable one
When the current only alternative is someone with clearly worse faculties and intentions, it obviously fucking is. Again, name who you think can beat him. Go ahead. Take into account the entire current political climate. We'll wait.
this is kinda a ridiculous request. The DNC should be the ones actively finding and presenting alternatives. If it was any other election year what if something happened to their primary candidate?
No one publicly shows interest because the party prevents any alternative. Anyone trying to run is accused of trying to break up the party, look at what happened to Bernie.
I advocated for Bernie, during the primaries, when it was time to choose a Democratic candidate. Note that that time is not now. Now is the time where a democratic candidate need to beat Trump. Do you think even swapping Bernie in now that he could beat Trump?
Not trying to question your motives here (seriously, I'm not) but I grimace hearing "we're only months away from the election, we couldn't possibly make changes now" because it has a perverse similarity to the argument Mitch McConnell used to ratfuck his way into an extra SC justice. And we all know how that turned out.
If you can't see the difference, that should be an indicator that perhaps your opinions are not very well informed.
This question broke me. If the left-leaning voting population of the USA can't support a single candidate against freaking Trump except Biden then we deserve whatever disaster occurs. That's embarrassing. Truly childish levels of spitefulness.
Or just that some people dont have any problem supporting Biden right now. Internet's full of loud assholes during on hills, thats what makes you successful here.
The Polymarket prediction markets gives odds for who will win the presidential election and who will win the democratic nominee. We can compare the odds of each candidate and use Bayes Theorem to determine their chances of winning the presidency if they secure the DNC nomination.
Here's the results as of posting this comment:
Joe Biden: 27% Kamala Harris: 50% Michelle Obama: 100% Gavin Newsom: 66% Other: 50%
Obviously this doesn't work perfectly (the Michelle Obama example especially is bizarre), but there is over $300M behind these numbers so people seem to think they're at least somewhat accurate.
TLDR: there is a lot of money that thinks Joe Biden is one of the worst options
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/09/biden-polling-debate-trump
That information doesn't change anything I've said. He can be "trailing trump" and still not be the best candidate the dems could have
I think there are people on the fence (who generally decide the election) who would be swayed by Biden's apparent dementia
Kucinich
No one knows who that is.
Of course not, because the media and DNC refused to give him any traction when he did run. That doesn't preclude anyone finding out, if they had the wherewithal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich
At any rate, demands for s name were made, one was given. This guy is mostly middle of the road and the DNC still considered him enough of a threat, they absolutely will not give him time of day, because he threatens the corporate -beholden status quo in just s couple of the ~~wrong~~ right ways.
Regardless of whatever conspiracy theory, he can't win so he's a terrible option.
Miss the point by much?
The point is you fuckers are demanding a new candidate NOW, but can't name anyone who wouldn't go down in flames.
The media attention from him replacing Biden would surely get the word across. The right-wing media would help name recognition by running a smear campaign. And, as everyone keeps saying, we are literally voting for "Not Trump" at this point. "Not Trump" doesn't have to be Biden.
It wouldn't be if there were an alternative who was not showing similar or worse signs of senility. When both of the only feasible candidates have the same issue, that issue is mostly moot.
You don't think if Biden stepped down and it was an open primary there wouldn't be some good options?
Pete Buttigeig, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, anyone under 60 would make Trump look like a dottering old man in comparison
I agree that those would be good candidates. I have little confidence that they would defeat Trump, especially now with relatively little name recognition among people who don't actively follow the news.