360

Biden ‘not sure he’d be running’ in 2024 if Trump wasn’t: ‘We cannot let him win’ (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Rapidcreek@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 88 points 2 years ago

Smooth move

Why is Biden running again? Committed to blocking Trump.
The statement taunts Trump (I did beat you and I’ll do it again).
Humility; it’s not about my ego, it’s about saving American democracy.
But also not provocative: a statement of fact, not up for debate.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 48 points 2 years ago

As of November 5th "Unnamed Democrat" polls up to 8 points higher than Biden with Trump leading in 5/6 swing states. They're both historically unpopular candidates with Biden trending downward. Best thing Biden could do at this point is withdrawal set up another Democrat candidate to run. Downvoting these simple polling facts doesn't make them go away and make everything okay, cause it's very much not okay right now.

[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 years ago

I get being concerned but it's way too early to panic. Historically, polling isn't predictive until June of the election year. A year out from the 2012 election, Obama's numbers were worse than Biden's and he still won in a landslide. In modern presidential elections, incumbents have won about 75% of the time. Abandoning the benefit of incumbency is almost always the worst thing you could do.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Too early to panic... unless Biden leaves the mortal plane.

Hopefully DNC has a plan in place for such contingency.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] cmhe@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

The question is who is the other Democrat candidate? I have the impression that putting fourth a popular candidate goes against everything the DNC stands for.

[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Exactly the Democrat Superdelegates made it clear in 2016 they would choose the party stalwarts over someone who had a certain chance of winning against the opponent. The reason for that is simply the finances that support the party benefit from the current economic arrangement, and most of those big donors aren't exclusively Democrat donors.

This is why the position where we ought not to protest the Democrats, yet also consider them the party for change and progress, is irreconcilable with reality. If Democrats are the party of change and progress then it's necessary to protest and agitate to sway them, if that's a futile effort then it proves they aren't the party for the job.

The argument to vote Democrats now is they aren't Trump, which is valid of course, but it gives Trump incredible power as the locus this hinges on. The Democrat PACs funding ad campaigns for the fascist GOP primary candidates is this strategy in plain view. It works in the election cycle because it coerces votes out of fear, but it's a losing downward spiral because it actively shifts politics to the right.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Last time I mentioned that poll, people tried to come up with all kinds of reasons to discredit it. Reasons that the poll explicitly stated how it accounted for them.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

How do they account for a poll being early AF?

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

At this point he's the only choice not Trump that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

load more comments (44 replies)

[+] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I was having a hard time reading this as a block of text so added some line breaks:

John Kelly, the longest-serving White House chief of staff for Donald Trump, offered his harshest criticism yet of the former president in an exclusive statement to CNN.

Kelly set the record straight with on-the-record confirmation of a number of damning stories about statements Trump made behind closed doors attacking US service members and veterans, listing a number of objectionable comments Kelly witnessed Trump make firsthand.

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason – in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

“There is nothing more that can be said,” Kelly concluded. “God help us.”

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

He couldn’t win if he were in prison you know. But he’s too rich for that

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

I wish we had younger leadership, but it is what it is. Biden is completely correct here, and I honestly don't doubt that he wouldn't be running otherwise. Who the hell would want to spend their last years in an incredibly stressful and highly visible position where half the country wants to hate you -- when instead you could be retired and do book deals and the like? If not for Trump, I would oppose Biden just on the basis that the best thing for his health is to not be president.

Trump is an existential threat. Biden has beaten Trump before. Biden has an incumbency advantage. Biden is an accepted consensus/compromise by the party. He's the safest candidate for beating Trump. It may be possible that there's a better candidate who could also beat Trump, possibly by higher margins even, but we don't have the luxury to test that.

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

These idiots are going to be tripping over themselves while fragmenting the voter base. The magabots are union and will vote en bloc. Get ready for another 4 years of misery under 45/47.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Zummy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

And the irony is that several people have already said they won’t vote for Biden. If you actually care about preventing Trump from running you would let another candidate run. And maybe, just maybe, don’t support the country that’s currently killing the family members of all the people whose votes you need.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] OfficerBribe@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

I know that in reality most people probably would not want to become a president, but aren't there really competent / well regarded people who could replace both of them?

I know this is not US specific, it seems like for most countries you never have an option to vote for someone you really want to come in power, it is always about the least shitty option.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago

But can you name someone specific? The fact is, Trump is enormously popular with Republicans. Biden isn’t well liked by anyone right now, but who is the competent and well regarded alternative? Sanders, Warren, and AOC are divisive with the electorate. Harris and Buttigieg are even less popular. If there’s a consensus candidate, it’s not obvious to me.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US president, Joe Biden, said on Tuesday that he is not sure he would be seeking re-election in next year’s election if he were not likely facing Republican Donald Trump.

Biden also talked about Trump’s renewed calls to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and how America is “the only nation built on an idea”.

“In that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime,” Biden said in a 2019 video announcing his run for president.

Last month senior Democrats sounded the alarm after an opinion poll showed Biden trailing the Republican frontrunner Trump in five out of six battleground states exactly a year before the presidential election.

Biden turned 81 earlier this month while Trump is 77, and polls show voters have concerns that both are too old to run again for the White House.

Earlier in Tuesday’s fundraising event Biden spoke at length about his support for Israel and the need to figure out what happens after the current conflict in Gaza.

The original article contains 296 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023

360 points (96.9% liked)

politics

25060 readers

796 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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