15
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mercano@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

I get that people want a more progressive candidate. I’ve voted for Bernie multiple times. However, if people wanted to challenge Biden, they should have contested the Primaries. Doing it now is just throwing a wrench in the works. In the current environment, I always wonder if some of this noise is a disinformation campaign from Russia trying to prop up Trump

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This isn't about wanting a more progressive candidate, this is about wanting a candidate who's not in cognitive decline. The DNC and administration intentionally kept that information from voters. They even punished Dean Phillips, the one serious Democrat who tried to contest the primaries, by forcing him out of leadership and primarying him.

I want a real progressive, but this point, I will take any corporate centrist they throw at me: Harris, Buttigieg, whatever. But Biden was propped up by the DNC, his diminished facilities are now apparent, and he will lose to Trump. He must be replaced if we're to have any shot of winning in November.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I want a more progressive candidate...

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

They did. There was a lot of uncommitted voters. Enough of them that they actually have delegates at the convention.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Not only that, they can still challenge Biden at the convention.

Biden's delegates aren't legally forbidden from voting for anyone else. It's pretty fuckin unlikely that it would actually happen, but there was a big deal in 1980 about someone trying to poach another candidate's delegates, so the DNC made a specific rule starting in 1984 that if you can talk someone else's delegates into voting for you instead, fair play, they're your delegates now. As far as I know, it's still legit to do that. Again: It's unlikely bordering on impossible. But it's not illegal to try. Why is no one talking about that when they are openly talking about how vital it is to dethrone him?

Yes, I saw the debate. It was a fuckin disaster. Even so, the theory that Biden is so weak and tottering that he can't speak without drooling and falls over in a strong breeze, but that he holds such an iron grip on power in the DNC that no one can even breathe a word of challenge, and the right move is for him to abandon the ship and trust that no-one-in-particular will rise up to claim the wheel without needing to go through the "fighting Biden for the wheel" process, and definitely be a better candidate once that special exception is made for them, doesn't really hold up to me.

Disclaimer, I still don't know what the right answer is, Biden is old as fuck, I think Jon Stewart would objectively do better in the campaign than he would. But, Biden saying that made a lot more sense than any number of people saying "Let's replace him! But not with me, or anyone in particular."

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
15 points (54.7% liked)

politics

18802 readers
4331 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! 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.
  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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS