this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
294 points (86.6% liked)

politics

19136 readers
2497 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 172 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

Obviously because he's a weak candidate (and has been from the very beginning) in what might well be the highest stakes presidential race in US history.

The debate didn't suddenly create some notion of his weakness as a candidate - long before the debate, his prospects were already shaky at best, and the Dem establishment had already had to resort to basically trying to guilt trip people into voting for him.

All the debate did as far as any of that goes is drive home the point that people have been trying to make from the beginning - that he is and always has been a weak and uninspiring candidate at best.

And I'd say that rather obviously, if anyone's repeating the mistakes of 2016, it's the Dem establishment.

And on a bit of a side note - in response to the author's smugly self-congratulatory view that the voters are mindless automatons who just blindly do as the media tells them, I would just like to offer up a hearty, "fuck you."

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

All the debate did as far as any of that goes is drive home the point that people have been trying to make from the beginning - that he is and always has been a weak and uninspiring candidate at best

And Biden knew it too, it's why the man who wouldn't shut up for decades suddenly disappeared from the public eye.

He did less than a tenth of the press conferences as the last two presidents in their first term.

If they wouldn't have been hiding him, Dem voters would have seen how bad he's gotten.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 44 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I should also add that his ABC interview on Friday only intensified my concerns. To me, all it really communicated is that he actually IS so wrapped up in his own ego and hubris that he doesn’t actually get that this is an existential election, and that the consequences for failure are well and truly catastrophic. Like, there’s a good chance we won’t have functional democratic processes anymore if he looses. But he thinks that’s fine because “he will have given it his all”, ignoring the fact that “his all” is shuffling around, trying to compromise with fascists, and bringing a deck of cards to the gunfight that American politics have devolved into these days.

Really, it’s an evolution of the concerns I had in the 2020 elections, which have kind of proven out to be completely true: that despite some clear domestic policy successes, he’s more or less out of touch with the fact that he’s playing with an absurdly outdated rule book, and does not seem to understand that the rules have fundamentally changed. He doesn’t get that a lot of his old bipartisan negotiating tactics are straight up self-defeating these days.

I am genuinely and deeply worried at this point that his refusal to see past his own personal situation in all of this is going to lead to the conclusion of the American experiment in its current incarnation, and replace it with something far, far darker.

Edit: if you’re downvoting this, I am actually genuinely curious as to which parts of this you disagree with, or think are wrongheaded.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

I'm glad you mentioned his interview increased your concern. I thought it was just me. I'll vote for whoever is the Democrat on the ballot - but I'm not the person the campaign should be worried about. They have to put someone on the ballot who can win (which, as damning as it is to America broadly, is probably a good-looking, smooth-talking white guy who will look better on stage than Trump).

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Really, it’s an evolution of the concerns I had in the 2020 elections, which have kind of proven out to be completely true: that despite some clear domestic policy successes, he’s more or less out of touch with the fact that he’s playing with an absurdly outdated rule book, and does not seem to understand that the rules have fundamentally changed.

He and the DNC and the Democrat establishment as a whole.

The voters made it clear in 2020 that they didn't really want him all that much, and arguably the only reason he got the nomination is because the Democrat establishment transparently engineered it by getting all the candidates other than Sanders to all drop out and endorse Biden essentially simultaneously. That gave the establishment the opportunity to push through Biden's nomination in spite of his glaring weakness as a candidate. They could've had a populist to rival Trump, and one that's notably sane rather than a delusional narcissist and compulsive liar with the emotional maturity of a spoiled five-year-old, but instead they doggedly stuck to the same playbook that in the past brought us such drab losers as Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, and brought us another drab loser who only barely managed to not lose.

And now here we are, four years down the line, with a drab loser incumbent up against the greatest threat American democracy has ever faced.

The rules clearly changed in 2016. The RNC and the Republican establishment changed to accomodate them (or at least to provide a colorable appearance of doing so). The DNC and the Democrat establishment did not. And now we're reaping what they sowed.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I get so frustrated, and I'm sure others too, that I've been saying this for the entirety of the Biden presidency. Now that it's 10 minutes to midnight everyone decides to talk about it. My voice has been ignored, I've been shutdown and basically forced out of any discussion when I brought this shit up.

The problem isn't that the media changed. The problem isn't that the DNC changed. The problem isn't progressives changed. The problem is the voting public decided just now to actually show up. Democracy is dying not because the Republicans are political juggernauts it's because Americans can't get it up unless it's fucking a giant production.

So you mother fuckers better do everything you fucking can to keep Trump out because I cant fucking even with you guys anymore.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would say that the fact that the DNC hasn't changed is pretty obviously the main problem.

With the exceptions of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, they've been offering up nothing but weak, uninspiring establishment hack candidates for decades now. And 2016 was the year when the base finally said that enough was enough, and they wanted an inspiring candidate who actually shared their values and not just another establishment hack who happened to have a (D) after their name.

And instead of changing to accomodate the clearly expressed preference of the electorate, the DNC dug in their heels and forced the establishment hack on us anyway.

Then after that so deservedly blew up in their faces, they went ahead and did it again in 2020. And they only managed to get away with it that time because Trump had just spent the last four years proving that he's not just a ridiculous buffoon in clown makeup, but a grotesquely power-hungry buffoon in clown makeup who's ready and willing to destroy the US because daddy never loved him.

And I'd say that the last four years, and the fact that Trump is back and a bigger threat than ever, pretty clearly illustrates that in spite of the fact that he managed to win, the establishment hack still wasn't the right choice.

But as far as I can see, the DNC and the Democrat establishment still hasn't changed. They're still determined to go with an uninspiring establishment hack and count on some combination of resignation, desperation and guilt to compel enough people to vote for him to hopefully eke out a win.

The entire reason that Trump got support in the first place is that he gave a previously disillusioned and frustrated base what they wanted. The GOP was all set to nominate their own establishment hack - Jeb Bush - but when they saw the way the wind was blowing, they (eventually) got out of the way and let the people pick Trump instead. And it worked, entirely predictably.

There's a much larger base on the left, including the vast majority of young voters, who are currently disillusioned and frustrated, and the DNC and the Democrat establishment, specifically because they haven't and apparently won't change, are missing out on the opportunity they would provide. And this is NOT a time to be missing out on opportunities. This is NOT a time for business as usual. It's a time to inspire people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 72 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The ~~media~~ DNC is once again repeating the mistakes of 2016

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Pokemon go to the polls? No. This time we need you to walk tuah polling place and vote on that thang.

[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Fucking hell I love the “walk tuah poll.” Damn, I wish I was running my own campaign to use that on right now. I wouldn’t hesitate to use it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 15 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Two different groups can be fucking things up in depressingly familiar fashion at once

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] blindbunny@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 months ago

~~2016~~ 1968

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 49 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just the pundit class? 🤨

[–] nieceandtows@programming.dev 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Welcome to the pundit class

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago

Because they probably watched the same disaster of a debate that I did.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It is very clear that the people who oppose Trump fall into one of two camps right now:

Those who watched the debate and his ABC interview, and those who did not.

If you watched, you're alarmed.

If not, you are feeling like this alarm is better worth ignored. And you should go watch the debate and interview.

Smerconish's piece on it was exactly it. https://youtu.be/CgZRz2vdnp8

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

It's silly to talk about a "pundit class". It's not like they're a group with any coherent ideas, much less any sort of persistent group loyalty. They're just people with opinions and a platform.

This article tries to make it sound like he's a really popular candidate and there's some shady group of kingmakers trying to block him.

The main reason that people are pushing for him to step aside is that they don't believe he can beat Trump. It's not that people were grumpy about a raspy voice. There was already a lot of suspicion that he's going senile. He got the benefit of the doubt and the debate was his chance to prove the doubters wrong. Instead he confirmed their deepest fears. Since then, he's provided a steady stream of examples of his diminishing mental capacity.

A formal cognitive assessment might lay those fears to rest but, at this point, it's unlikely. For many people, the conclusion is clear; the evidence is in and he forgets what he's talking about mid-sentence. Many people look at the polling numbers around that just want someone who has a chance of beating Trump.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Don't disagree, but also curious why the same pundits aren't ripping apart Trump's senility? 30 seconds of watching a Daily Show weekly roundup will provide COUNTLESS examples of Trump rambling endlessly and forgetting what he was even talking about. Just because it wasn't as stark at the debate doesn't' mean it isn't happening. I'd also imagine that Trump was probably coked out of his mind at the debate after he spent weeks leading up to it claiming Biden would be on drugs. He has a well-documented history of projecting whatever he's doing wrong on his opposition.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 months ago

Because Trump's senility doesn't matter; Republicans are going to vote for him regardless

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago

It's because we're talking about two entirely different groups of people.

More and more Democrats are calling for Biden to withdraw because they don't believe he can beat Trump.

Republicans are happy to stick with Trump because they're fairly sure he can trounce Biden.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 12 points 4 months ago

Don’t disagree, but also curious why the same pundits aren’t ripping apart Trump’s senility

Republicans are held to a lower standard.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Those articles are out there.

The key differences are Trump is the popular candidate. He is who the GOP electorate wants and who the GOP runs on.

Biden is not a popular candidate and not who the Democratic party electorate necessarily wants: instead his whole candidacy and presidency has solely been not being Trump. This condition is fully transferrable to any candidate with support of the party.

So the ramifications and implications are wildly different.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Because it drives ratings and all the dumbasses who pick it up and run with it are the same ones who followed "this is how Bernie can still win." I've already seen multiple people say "we could have AOC!" as if that is at all realistic. And although she is the most "out there" fan fic pick there are still plenty of others who would immediately be torn apart.

Choosing a different horse at this point leads to a Mondale style wipeout.

Funny how everyone latches onto "generic democrat polls better" polls that would IMMEDIATELY shift as soon Biden drops and they come in.

It would:

  1. signal Democrats have no idea what they're doing
  2. Put out the feeling they're terrified
  3. Open up a new candidate to attacks "they're too left, they're too soft on crime, they're ...."
  4. Give up the incumbency advantage and it IS an advantage.

Why anyone is still on this "drop out Biden" crap is beyond me. His interview was fine (notice how no one is bringing that up in comparison to one bad debate). Trump has MULTIPLE times looked confused and out of it on this campaign trail let alone all the years before (notice how no one brings that up.) Project 2025 should scare the living daylights out of anyone- Republican, Democrat, or independent and especially in light of the relatively progressive and largely relaxed time of Biden's admin..

To me this is nothing but a Republican plan come to fruition by latching on whatever they could and a bunch of dummies running with it. And by dummies I mean people who don't like Biden and see this as their perfect chance to drop him, even if their preferred younger candidate gets absolutely stomped in the election. They'd rather have "their way" even if it means giving up the presidency.

Hold the line- Biden will be fine.

[–] mikegioia@lemmy.ml 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For me it was seeing a news article montage showing literally the exact same headlines from 2016 about Hillary Clinton. It’s just the same play from a tired playbook.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 19 points 4 months ago

And you know what? It's working. Because the media is a big bag of chucklefucks who will all be looking around like "we're all looking for the guy that did this" when Project 2025 comes for them.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago

How did Hillary do in the outcome of 2016 election btw?

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To me this is nothing but a Republican plan come to fruition by latching on whatever they could and a bunch of dummies running with it.

That's a pretty good summary of most of the anti-Biden rhetoric this go around. It seems like the GOFascists know that trump is going to struggle and they're latching on to anything to keep bad Biden news on everyone's mind and not Trump's dementia riddled asinine word vomit.

Sad to see how many "leftists" are doing their best to get republicans elected. Be it bad faith discussions or just accelerationist ideology, it sounds the same on the outside.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's clearly because the evil media is out to get Perfect Young Biden. There can be no other possible explanation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Look who pays their bills.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Wow, this is written by one truly oblivious journalist

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Because Biden is a distasteful choice for president. That being said, there are no other strong options right now so we’re stuck with it.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

there are no other strong options right now

How so? The Rest is Politics identified a few candidates who are more than capable, Gavin Newsom among them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Interesting title. I had the impression that so many pundits sought to prop him up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Because they are spineless cowards and various GOP operatives who have been doing this shit since Clinton and have become absolutely fuckin experts at it, came up to them in the locker room

“Hey so I pretty much everyone thinks Biden is a loser now,” they said.

“Really?” Said the media.

“Oh my God, do you even have to ask that?” asked the GOP derisively. “Did you see him at the debate?”

“I guess he did look pretty old…” said the media, thinking silently about when Trump said a wave of immigrants was coming in and killing our citizens at a level we’ve never seen.

“Media, he looked like a fucking ZOMBIE. He looked like an old, old man who didn’t know what year it was. I hope they find someone new after this. They’re pretty much going to have to. There’s no way they’re going to stick with that guy. He looks like someone’s great grandfather. He’s finished,” said the GOP forcefully. And then, after a carefully timed pause, they turned. “Wait, you don’t think he did GOOD, do you?”

And so on

And then the GOP operative got paid almost two hundred thousand dollars a year, and the media went out and wrote the story it was goddamned well supposed to write.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Dude. The Democrats leaked like a sieve to the media after that debate. It wasn't the GOP holding the knife.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

It's not quite the same as 2016 because then, we had no incumbent President running. It was a blank slate on both sides.

load more comments
view more: next ›