267
submitted 2 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 8 points 2 months ago

I was one of those that thought biden shouldn't drop out, because I was worried about the risk of infighting breaking out over who would replace him, distracting everyone and driving away voters, and I was also concerned about throwing away the incumbent advantage. I still feel the risks of that happening were real and valid, but I'm immensely pleased that those worries didn't come to pass and everyone immediately unified behind Harris.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago

Those risks were indeed real, but they were also much, much less likely than you feared because the DNC is not the democratic institution it pretends to be.

Support was always going to immediately solidify behind Harris because she's an incumbent, has access to Biden's PAC, and the DNC chairperson is a Biden appointee. If there was another candidate who could have contested Harris they'd have already contested Biden during the aborted primary.

Right now, the election is still a toss-up, but it won't stay that way. The next couple of weeks will show Harris on track to come out just ahead in the electoral college, and the results of the election depend on whether or not the Republicans can reclaim the initiative in time to swing the needle back.

The real question, regardless of who wins, is the Republican party establishment itself. Tensions between the party's wealthy financiers and the right-wing culture warriors they depend on for electoral relevance have never been higher. Winning the presidency might prolong the status quo a little longer, but I don't see how they can resolve this fundamental conflict amicably. How long can the house stand divided against itself, and who will rise to challenge the Democrats from the Left once they're gone?

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 months ago

this sounds a bit like survivorship bias. Because the outcome has been good does not mean risks where less likely. That being said for myself it was not about risk per se but more I just liked him over any realistic possibility including harris. that being said I see little difference between voting for harris as vice president or potential president given the age and directly for president. so ultimately its fine.

[-] DougHolland@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Me too. Happy as heck to have been wrong.

this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
267 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19077 readers
3289 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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