175
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Here we go, the first Presidential debate between Biden and Trump begins at 9 PM Eastern/6 PM Pacific.

How to watch it:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/politics/how-to-watch-cnn-debate/index.html

"The CNN Presidential Debate will air live on CNN, CNN International and CNN en Español, and via streaming on Max for subscribers and without a cable login on CNN.com. CNN will make the debate available to simulcast on additional broadcast and cable news networks.

You can also follow CNN’s live debate coverage on CNN.com, which will include analysis and fact checking."

"According to parameters set by CNN in May, all participating debaters had to appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.

Polls that meet those standards are those sponsored by CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post."

Edit And that's it! Thanks for watching everyone!

tl;dw:

Consensus is Trump didn't so much as beat Biden as Biden beat himself.

The real loser is CNN who failed to fact check anyone, and there were obvious fact checks on both sides.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 40 points 2 weeks ago

If Biden is going to be replaced it has to be a huge name like AOC or Bernie. It’s too late to campaign anyone newer

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago

The DNC would rather let Trump win than Bernie

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

AOC technically won't be old enough until October 13th, which I guess isn't a problem for being sworn in in January. But I don't see people voting for someone who just qualified weeks before the election.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago

I think technically she's qualified now because she would be old enough when she takes office.

The larger problem is her gender and progressiveness. If Democrats switch horses now they need twice the amount of money and the most solid of supports.

Also, this is why we should have had a real primary. This would have come out months ago and he could have gracefully stepped aside.

[-] oyo@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago

Draft Jon Stewart

[-] tills13@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Gavin Newsome? He's got name recognition and notoriety.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

Plus, he's been moving to the right as quickly as he can for months, so the party should love him by now.

[-] Xero@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago
[-] tills13@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Eh progress is a bus ride not an Uber. I'd rather a centrist than a fascist.

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Wish Bernie were an option, but he's got medical issues that make him ineligible.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Ineligible? Bernie could be on his death bed, he'd still be more "eligible" than Trump or Biden. Honestly, at this point, does the US even have eligibility requirements for POTUS?

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Look, I agree with you. But the laws are already in place to require a certain amount of physical stability. In the current context, that's just plain nuts, I'd pick just about any other democrat over Biden. Who knows, maybe he'll reject the nomination (like he probably should). And we'll get AOC or Harris or something.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

The best we could get from the DNC would be to have Biden resign and Kamala step in... Technically she'd be "the incumbent"... She'd probably still lose though

[-] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

I personally agree that one of those two being President would be great.

But then I think of the cold hard reality of who I share this country with. All the people out there who, in the face of Trump being Trump, can somehow be undecided or unlikely to vote. They just don’t seem like the type to get off their ass for somebody who will be characterized as extreme.

We here know they aren’t extremists. We know they’re basically centrists within the larger civilized world. But ignorance is a huge part of the problem for the US voters who are indifferent enough towards Trump that they aren’t already lining up to vote for Biden or anybody who takes his place.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago

Unlikely to vote= because there's no one worth voting for

Undecided= probably mostly non existent

Run a Bernie or AOC and pull far more "unlikely to vote" people off the bench than the handful of fence riders it'll lose

No one who was going to vote for Joe wouldn't vote for Bernie... It's not like anyone is voting FOR Joe, they're just voting against Trump, and if that means Bernie then so be it

[-] Xero@infosec.pub 1 points 2 weeks ago

Kamala Harris cannot be bypassed, if you do that say goodbye to the Black votes that you will need to win this. What you is a good old boy from the Midwest of the south to be her VP pick.

[-] Dinsmore@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

(almost) no black people care about Kamala.

[-] Xero@infosec.pub 0 points 2 weeks ago

In your opinion, as a white guy.

this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
175 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18114 readers
4473 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS