this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
67 points (67.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2990 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. 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.
  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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTetrapod@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, but it is kind of insane that we think 4 months is way too late to change candidates, when other countries do their whole election cycle in a month.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As Jon Stewart and many others have already pointed out -Two of our closest allies just recently managed to announce and host national elections in a matter of weeks. It's nothing short of absurd that we allegedly can't even field a new candidate for a single party in the course of four months.

[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wish our system was theirs.

But historically, in the US, the candidate with the biggest war chest wins the election.

Biden has considerably more than Trump. Inertia alone is almost certain to guarantee that Trump loses with Biden on the ticket. That being said, one of the only times this wasn't true meant Trump became president.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So you're saying that Hillary Clinton losing to Trump was because she didn't have as large of a war chest?

Or was that not part of history?

[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From what I read, she did have the bigger war chest. I am sorry if I was unclear. I was stating that Donald Trump is a rare candidate who has won without the larger funding base.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

You have one candidate who beat the odds and won with less money. He will win with more money.

Kamala is the only path forward.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You can't point out the most obvious example that proves money isn't everything.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"Nooo, you can't point to the very relevant counterpoint to what's being claimed. That's not fair."

[–] Zier@fedia.io 4 points 4 months ago

True, other countries are shorter. But in America, it's 2 YEARS of political garbage. We need proper Federal election laws and one of those limits the time we have to be subjected to the campaigns. It should be less than 6 months from start to finish with mandatory debates so Voters can tune in and be easily informed. Right now it's just chaos and disinformation. And the US press has abandoned journalism. We now have Fox News 1. Fox 2 (NYT), Fox 3 (WSJ), etc. The UK transferred power in 24 hours. 4 months is getting very late in the game for the US, where everything takes longer than a trip to Pluto. This is not the year to piss around, it may be the last time anyone votes ever.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago

Which countries? Most I can think of the candidates for head office are pretty well set months or a year ahead