-8

As President Joe Biden’s campaign scrambles to calm nerves about the president’s disastrous debate performance, Democrats on Capitol Hill are growing increasingly furious at those around him and increasingly despondent about his prospects for re-election — and their own chances of winning House and Senate majorities.

Conversations about a strategy shift are already underway, with some Democratic lawmakers and many deep-pocketed donors plotting how, should Biden continue in the race, to ensure a congressional check on a second Donald Trump term.

“The way I’m talking to my donors is: The House is the last firewall, folks. We have to flip the House,” one frontline House Democrat told Playbook last night. “Ninety-nine percent of the people I talked to can’t get their credit card out fast enough.”

But make no mistake: The despair and frustration are real, and it is pushing upward inside the party. It has been felt acutely by frontline members — the swing-district Democrats who would be the cornerstone of any majority. Donors blew up their phones over the weekend, with some prodding them to go public with a group letter calling for a new candidate, an idea that some discussed over the weekend.

all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Man, if only we knew he was old a shit 4 years ago so we could start planning for this then. Oh well, I guess hindsight is 2020.

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com -5 points 5 months ago

If only folks had gotten off their tail and voted for an alternate candidate rather than sitting on the couch whining about our political system and making memes...

[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

You can't just vote for an alternate candidate. That's a non-viable strategy. In a fptp system (and one that requires owner money) ,you are reliant on party leadership to put forth worthwhile candidates. Democrats should have started grooming the heir apparent on Jan 21, 2020.

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 5 points 5 months ago

True, I'm more referring to the primaries in 2016 and 2020. You get all too many around here clamoring for 3rd party protest votes or disengagement.

Even with the sketchy goings on during those two, if there was an overwhelming vote for Bernie (who's no younger mind you, but it's an alternate that appeals to a different demographic) it'd be a tough sell to go against that even if the party did get a court to agree they could.

Even without party backing though, if there was a particular person that people took to en-masse the rules don't preclude them from office or appearing on national ballots. Look at Trump, people at first wrote him off as a joke, similar to the other times he ran before, now he's a major threat to both parties.

[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Oh, I completely agree. This is way too complicated to fit into simple comment chains. There will be books upon books about this (assuming we're still allowed to write books in the future).

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 2 points 5 months ago

I know the word "rigged" is overused in politics these days but I'm not sure how else to describe the method the RNC and DNC use to select candidates. We have a matchup of historically unpopular individuals who were both President already, and yet most feel as though there was an inevitable quality to each receiving his party's nomination.

I live in a primary state where party registration is arbitrary and I could have easily participated in the process for either major party (just providing this background lest I be accused of being something I'm not). Problem is, by the time it rolls around to my state, the momentum of previous caucuses and primaries has all but secured the nomination already and my ability to influence the process is effectively zero.

The DNC and RNC have created a system of managed coronation disguised as some sort of democratic process. And what's worse is they now set the precedent of rigged debates designed to exclude meaningful alternatives. If they have a second debate they'll probably make up something about minimum Twitter mentions or shoelace color to purposely exclude RFK and other 3rd party candidates again.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I asked in another thread what candidate other people canvassed for and maybe they shouldn't be complaining if they didn't canvass for anyone. I didn't canvass for anyone and said so. I got one person who said they canvassed for Bernie Sanders. And they have my respect for that. But mostly other than that, I just got downvotes. It didn't surprise me, but I think it kind of proved what I was saying.

We got Biden in 2024 because not enough people, myself included, did enough to get anyone else. Frankly, in my case, I wasn't offered an alternate candidate who threw their hat into the ring (Bernie did not) and who I thought would be electable. I don't have an issue canvassing for a candidate who hasn't announced they would run, but I personally don't think it's a good use of my time.

I didn't find anything about Doug Burgum or especially Marianne Williamson that made me feel like I should work for their campaigns. They didn't convince me to put the effort in.

To be clear, Biden didn't convince me to put the effort in either.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
-8 points (38.9% liked)

News

23435 readers
819 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS