this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
124 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3011 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
 

Politico.com

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 80 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Anyone who thinks a sitting president won't be the party nominee in the next election (barring a case like LBJ who voluntarily chose not to run) is deluding themselves.

The only thing that could stop Biden at this point is some kind of medical intervention.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

The state of the country is so bad that the only thing that bring it back is literally two accidental medical interventions. Our political system needs a major overhaul

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 40 points 11 months ago

The state of the country is so bad that...

Fundamentally disagree. If Trump and Biden both died on the same day before the election, it would not change a thing, other than make the next election even more contentious. Project 2025 doesn't go away just because Trump would be gone in that scenario.

Our political system needs a major overhaul

Agreed. It's going to take decades of concerted efforts, because the fascists aren't simply going to give up after a few losses.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

ATM that would leave a Christian Nationalist as the president. What a wonderful system we have...

[–] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Pretty sure referencing Trump and Biden having issues not Biden and Harris.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

Gotta get the money out and require someone to be who they say they are to share content on the Internet.

[–] JimmyChanga@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Biden should have he sense to stop Biden. And there should be an upper age limit placed on the role.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Upper age limit would require an amendment.

[–] JimmyChanga@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

No objection to amendment for this issue.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

My heart is with you but do you remember the last primarys? 2016 they were not. I liked some of those folks, some even more than Biden, but there was no "Obama 2.0".

I strongly dislike Joe for 1132 different reasons, but can you really imagine spooling up anyone else at this point?

I hate it. And I hope the dem party fractures into factions and the best can get through. Just after the GOP finishes it's implosion because it's terrifying.

Edit: I also had serious misgivings with Obama. But my point is of the dem primary cantidates leading up 2020 the best you can say is they were as memorable as Howard Dean.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When was the last time a incumbent president has been defeated by a primary challenger?

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In short, never. At least not in the era of modern primaries where people have a chance to vote on who will be the candidate, rather than just party leaders selecting the candidate, which began in the 1970s.

If you go back further in time, there's been a few incidents where party leaders denied their endorsement to an election incumbent for various reasons.

https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

From Gilmore Girls, I think.

[–] erranto@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Democrats: Trump winning the 2024 election is an eminent threat to our democracy

-- 2024 DNC Primaries --

Also Democrats : Move on there is nothing to see here

[–] spider@lemmy.nz 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well it is consistent with what the Dems did to Bernie during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles.

[–] Godric@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Primaries should not be canceled.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 25 points 11 months ago

Primaries exist solely to benefit the parties.

Remember that. The states spend a lot of resources to hold primaries, but at the end of the day the purpose is to help each party have their best shot of winning the general election. If the state Democrats think this is their best option, so be it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I mean, it's not like Democrats have convincingly pretended that the results of the primaries aren't preordained since 2016. They're just dropping the act.

[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wait, it still surprises people that the democrats rig their primary?

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The incumbent is always the party candidate regardless of party.

[–] Decoy321@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not always true, there has been one example where the incumbent lost their primary, Franklin Pierce.

He was the 14th president, winning the 1852 election. His handling of the political climate before the civil war didn't get him enough support for the 1856 election, ultimately losing the primary bid to James Buchanan.

That's not even considering the multiple times when someone took over for deceased presidents, then lost their own reelection primaries afterwards.

So there is precedent for not using the incumbent. It's just usually logical to pick the person that's already won before.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Fair. Still, it is a rare exception to the rule.