87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
723 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe someone here could refresh my memory. I could have sworn that during 2020 campaigning, Biden indicated he would be a one term president that would willingly let a younger Democrat run for 2024. I haven't seen anyone really rake him through the coals over that, so maybe it was some misinformation that was spread to make him more attractive, but I feel like it was a really key reason I felt comfortable supporting him.
They haven't put anyone else up. No one has come up to challenge him. The Dems absolutely suck at presenting new leadership.
Probably because the last time someone saw the DNC running us all collectively off a cliff (Bernie in 2016), the DNC actively crushed their campaign, and then blamed them for the as-predicted DNC candidate's loss.
No one wants to see their future political career taken out back and shot, as the DNC's next scapegoat, if/when Biden loses.
I will always remember that moment in the 2020 Dem primary debates where Swalwell relayed a story about going to a political rally as a 6 year old and hearing the candidate tell people to pass the torch to the younger generation, and then revealing that Biden was that candidate, and Biden then quipping that he'd "hold onto" the torch for now.
He literally is so arrogant that he truly believes he is the only person alive who can beat Trump. He'd rather be buried with that torch than admit that there are many others that could do far better than him.
The thing is though, I think he's right. There is no younger alternative to him that has any chance of winning an election right now. At best, some are popular among college-aged males, a group that thinks they are far more important and numerous than they actually are (see also: Bernie-Bros).
Newsome would wipe the floor with Biden's crappy poll numbers, and I don't even like him.
Your argument is literally the argument that was put forth against Obama when he first announced his run. People always falsely claim the DNC's ordained pick is the only path forward, when in reality they tend to eke out a win (or not, see 2016), while the dark horse candidates run away with elections.
The anti-Bernie rhetoric is #8 on the "Ur-DNC list of characteristics", where the alternative candidates are cast as both too strong and too weak; having enough support to tank the election, but also so little support as to be safely ignored.
Bernie has never had and still has no chance outside of the aforementioned young white male demographic. He's doing a decent job as a senator, but he won't ever be presidential material.
First off, no one is pushing for Bernie to run now. He's too old, just like Biden.
Secondly, why should anyone take this position seriously when the very person who was predicted to be "who Democrats actually want" lost to Trump in an election where they got fewer votes than Obama did in either election, despite there being MORE registered Democrats?
Your opinions on who is strong or weak as a candidate are just that.
The only provable point here is that progressive voters were ignored or even actively spurned by the DNC's aggressively anti-progressive candidates, and that put Trump in power.
What Democrat governer, senator, congressman, mayor or whatever currently has the public profile to be electable nationally?
"Electable" is a subjective, moving goalpost.
You can easily discount Biden as being "electable" from polls that show him losing to Trump.
No one is excited for him, the most anyone can manage is that he beat Trump once, and after Gaza many people are markedly upset with the prospect of voting for him.
Point being, your question is inherently flawed: no one is voting for Biden because it's Biden, people are only going to vote because the other person has an 'R' next to their name, and even more people if that person is Trump. You could probably pick a registered Democrat at random and if they were the general election candidate see them do nearly as well as Biden, barring the crusty pro-Biden fossils who would withhold their votes out of spite.
And yes, I think there are actually politicians on the "left" that you could replace him with and have a much better chance of winning, Newsom (regardless of my issues with him) being the most obvious answer.
I get the idea of voting not-R vs excited to vote for the Dem. But Hillary Clinton would like a word.
I'm old. In almost every election it has been the same for me. Vote for the lesser of the evils. I would vote for a very progressive candidate if I thought they would have a chance. When I was young I did vote 3rd part a few times.
Voting for the lesser of the evils isn't exciting but you know what, it has been a vastly better plan seeing a Dem, any dem in power, than the R alternatives in my life. Compare to, Reagan, Bush, Shrub, and Mr Indictment.
For this current election, it is crazily out of balance. Contrary to popular opinion (real or manufactured) I believe Biden has been a good president. The Israel situation is deeply depressing and I am not happy with how that has been handled but I guarantee the world will be a much, much worse place with vastly more severe consequences if Biden loses.
I believe Biden has been a mostly-decent president, apart from the whole providing-weapons-for-genocide thing, or the whole authorizing-fossil-fuel-extraction-on-federal-lands-after-expicitly-promising-not-to thing, or the whole campaigning-for-more-police thing, or the whole aggressive-deportations-of-assylum-seekers thing... Oh wait.
And don't get me wrong, I don't want Trump to win; but I'm becoming more certain he will, barring a criminal conviction. Biden is weak, and getting weaker, as a candidate.
And you already have the DNC preparing for it, too, putting out op-eds about how if Biden loses, it will have been the fault of RFK, or West, or Bernie, or literally whoever else they can pin it on.
And at some point, if all you're doing is choosing the lesser-genocider, where any potential non-genociders are being actively sabotaged and removed from your options as a voter, you're not in a democracy, you're in a facade that makes you believe you have Representation, so you won't repeat what happens when you don't believe that.
And I'm not sure what you mean about Hillary wanting a word; she is the poster child for "not excited to vote for", and what happens when you force that candidate through anyways.
Yeah, But can you name any president in the last 70 years from either party who didn't bend over for Isreal?
Yes, I was in fact able to find plenty of info written about this relating to presidents before my time. Apparently it was Reagan (surprise surprise) who really kicked off US supporting Israel militarily, but even Reagan had the balls to cut off weapons sales to Israel after they bombed Iraq's only nuclear reactor in 1981 (which was a much more arguably valid target than city blocks of homes in Gaza). Prior to him, our aid to Israel was mostly limited to food assistance and political shielding at the UN outside of limited support during the 1967 war. Source.
Biden on the other hand, is literally trying to secure MORE military aid for them, so he's literally doing worse on this issue than Reagan did, which is quite a feat.
But more recently, Obama was absolutely at odds with Netanyahu, and even clashed with Biden personally, over Biden's support for Israel.
This rhetoric that, "oh well there's nothing else that Biden can do" is complete b.s. It's been his open, sincerely-stated desire to support Israel, for decades.
None, of course. This is an ivory tower sort of article, a pining for an America that doesn't exist right now. She's the Left's version of Matt Gaetz saying that Mike Johnson is too liberal and rolls over for the Democrats. It's a good path to a D loss in the fall, and Vladimir must be excited to have her on his team.
I think they wanted to, but the young alternatives that the party leaders and donors liked have almost 0 popular support. Buttigieg, Harris, Yang, Gabbard, and Klobuchar were all relatively “young”, the party insiders liked them, the donors/media owners don’t hate them, but the average democratic voter ether dislikes them or is apathetic.
The people who do have popular support say things that scare donors and media owners. So they have spent years trying to convince the party and moderate voters that they’re not viable candidates.
So Biden it is because incumbent advantage.
You're still living in 2016 based on the names you put out there. Newsom is the obvious answer, who actually has been extensively discussed for this or next election. He has popular support among voters and the establishment Dems.
Others like Whitmer have plenty of name recognition nationally, and in her case especially a great story to run on (Republicans wanted me dead to shut down my political views, now I'm gonna take that perspective to the office of the president).
There are others, too, but if you're still listing Tulsi Gabbard as a Democrat I am not surprised you're not up to date on candidates; she not only left the Democratic Party (and wrote a book about it), she has shifted to the Right on abortion and LGBT+ right, even publicly supporting Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill.
Those were literally all candidates in the 2020 primary? How am I in 2016, the primary candidates of note in 2016 were Clinton and Sanders.
Newsome is hardly new to the talk about potential candidates and is far from exciting. Whitmer is maybe a bit more appealing but we’ll see how much that holds when she starts talking to donors about funding her campaign.
Tulsi is exemplary of the issue with “moderate” democratic candidates, they’re all two bad days from starting to post about the “woke mind virus”.
January 6th occurred, Trump has been relatively unscathed, and Trump is running again. That's what has changed since 2019.
If Trump had been fully prosecuted, or had decided not to run Biden likely wouldn't be running.
I remember this as well and I posted about it either here or the r/ and got downvoted all to shit over it. Gaslighting that it never happened. He said something about being a transition pres, bringing people back together and would hand o er the reins or some shit. I voted for him and he got his 4 years. Now the old Warhawk has lots of potential conflicts to get us mired in and doesn’t want to give up the chair.