347
submitted 2 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world

I have no idea about William Hill. But the odds they describe sound about right to me, and the Nate Silver thing and the summary of Trump’s speech sound informative

inb4 BIDEN COPIUM HAHAHA etc and etc

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

Absolutely correct. But even if the choice is a shitty one it's also a very easy one. If you want fascism, vote for Trump. If not, vote for Biden.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 33 points 1 month ago

Or whoever the Democratic nominee is

There’s a perfectly reasonable conversation to be had about replacing Biden being a better strategy. 10 seconds of thinking will lead one to realize that figuring out the strategy, and then switching to it, is way better than dumping Biden and then figuring out the strategy afterwards. And, it’s notable that all the same outlets who are openly hostile to democracy in the United States were the ones that were pushing so hard on the backwards version of the strategy, until the more gullible parts of the Democratic Party apparatus eventually picked it up and started running with it.

The forward strategy is still fine. The loud preemptive drumbeat of hard criticism of Kamala that is now emerging, though, should hopefully serve as a big loud blaring fucking wake up call to anyone who is sincerely interested in defeating Trump who is still echoing the backwards version.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've said it before I'll say it again. I'm voting for Kamala but it's not clear she's better than Biden as a strategy.

But what is clear is that Kamala is better than nearly everyone else the Democrats can crown between today and the DNC. We only have a 4 months before the election and Kamala is the only one who was actually campaigning at all.

So if we replace Biden, it's almost purely to give Kamala a running mate. That's about it, and these value in this.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah. To me the only options with any level of realistic viability are:

  1. Biden
  2. Harris
  3. Contested convention, someone with a baseball bat in hand talks firmly to the DNC about not fucking everything up with their foot on the scales like they did in 1968 and 2016, and see what shakes out of an actually fair process

Anything else is nonsense. I have no real ironclad feelings about which of those options is best, although I lean towards 1 or 3, but the DUMP BIDEN RIGHT NOW, NOW NOW NOW, DON’T THINK ABOUT IT BOY DON’T ASK QUESTIONS JUST DO IT OR ELSE YOU DOOM AMERICA AND IT’LL ALL BE YOUR FAULT idea doesn’t appear in that list. To me.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah. I'm not against removing Biden (even if I think keeping Biden is the best option). I'm just against a brainless, plan less removal of Biden.

I've pointed out how Liberals rallied in 2011 for Occupy Wall Street only for Republicans to win in 2012, 2014 and 2016. People need to think about politics of they ever want to get ahead.

It's not sufficient to just get together in a large rally. We need actual votes.


I feel like #2 and #3 will likely lead to Kamala. I'm up for an open and fair convention even if Kamala isn't selected.

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
347 points (92.6% liked)

politics

18852 readers
5153 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