• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is exactly what we should expect all of Biden’s top allies to say, publically, unless he decides to back out, in which case all these same people will publically say the next lady is the best bet now.

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Democrats are doing the same thing that republicans are doing: standing behind their man regardless of whether he’s fit for office or not.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s worked incredibly well for the right over the last 50 years. I suspect the left doesn’t actually have the discipline to do the same.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    They made sure he’s the only other viable candidate. I’m sick of the complete lack of actual choice.

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If he had what it takes to root out fascism he’d already be in motion using the Supreme Court ruling saying hes immune from anything he does in an official capacity. Dems in general are too tepid to even try. I really hope I’m wrong but leaving options on the table unused is the democratic way.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The more they pull this shit, the harder it is to not believe they’re just the fascists’ controlled opposition.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    They need more Bernies Sanders, AOCs… And that katie person… I forget their last name.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Katie Porter. Basically a younger Elizabeth Warren (who was taught by Warren no less).

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        If Katie Porter ran, I’d 1000% take a leave of absence at work and work her campaign.

        She is the progressive we need in the White House. I hope she runs in 2028.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Katie Porter just got beat. As much as I love her I don’t know why you think she’d be a strong National candidate when she couldn’t win a state race.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Well… To be fair there was some shady shit with that race. But put another way, does that mean Schiff would more likely win against Trump than Porter?

          But I tend to agree she’s not quite ready yet.

        • retrospectology@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          She lost because her party backed Schiff. The party is too heavily involved in picking winners during the party to know if a candidate could win a general.

          • njm1314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The party did back him, all the more reason she’s not going to be a viable candidate. I’d also point out that just because the party backed him doesn’t negate the fact that the people voted for him.

            • retrospectology@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              The people who vote for Biden will literally vote for anyone. Whether or not anyone voted for Schiff isn’t that strong of an indicator for the general since voter suppression within the Democratic party is much more severe than in the general.

              The party backing a candidate doesn’t mean they’re the best for the general, you’d think Clinton would’ve demonstrated that pretty clearly. In fact, party establishment picks are so anemic that they need to go out if their way to help prop up extremist GOP candidates to make their own guy look more electable. That’s literally their strategy to avoid supporting populist progressive candidates, to roll the dice with fascism.

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I want to think that 2024 is the battle of incumbents (ish), and that if Biden wins, 2028 will be our chance to “reset” - and get someone younger than Bernie up to the task.

      If Trump wins, and Project 2025 gets its way, 2028 won’t be happening.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          oh, sure. Everywhere, vigilance is required against assholes who want to fuck others over. Be they dictators, religious nutjobs, fascists, or combinations thereof. There will always be a Project 2025 waiting in the wings, to various extents.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If Biden won in November democrats would take it as confirmation that they can keep doing their pied piper strategy, you’ll end up with the exact same kind of choice. Project 2025 is not going away, so it will always be used to scare democrats into voting neoliberal corporate chosen one. There will be no reset, unfortunately.

        • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          oh, sure. Everywhere, vigilance is required against assholes who want to fuck others over. Be they dictators, religious nutjobs, fascists, or combinations thereof. There will always be a Project 2025 waiting in the wings, to various extents.

          • retrospectology@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yes, and Democrats don’t want to resist Project 2025 or build a strong institutional defense against it, they want it to always and forever be an immediate danger, so they can leverage it as a threat against Americans if they don’t vote for their Chosen One every election.

            That’s why neoliberals are complicit in the creep of fascism, they stand right up at the line and use it for political expediency but when they fail (like Clinton) it’s catastrophic.

  • Crikeste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well I’m glad the blame can now be shifted towards Biden allies when he loses, rather than leftists.

  • retrospectology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “He has the same 34% approval rate as Trump, that means he’s the only one who can beat him.”

    Neoliberalism; not even once.

    • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Is this… are you… Are you serious?

      This is a ridiculous equivalence on its face, and you should feel ridiculous for saying it. A debate does not have a “winner” beyond that which any number of biased observers, such as yourself, attempt to assert. This is not baseball.

      The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices. What, exactly, do you perceive DJT to have said and done on that stage that will convince supposed “undecided” voters to vote for him? What do you perceive Biden to have said or done that would make them decide that Mr. Trump is the better choice?

      As you said:

      “Undecided” voters fall into two categories:

      Trump voter: “Iah aint tellin’ YEW who IAHM a-votin’ FER!”

      Undecided voter trying to choose between voting and not voting.

      Nobody is undecided between the candidates.

      Were you yourself undecided? Or perhaps planning to vote for Biden prior to the debate, but now will vote for Trump instead? Given your analysis of undecided voters, I fail to see how the debate would have motivated the non-voters to go out and vote for a President Trump.

      What I saw, personally, was two very old men who have wildly different takes on ethics and the seriousness of the position. One of which has a lot of practice being on camera. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s performance at the debate was at least somewhat intentional, setting up a wonka-esque reversal for debate #2. Considering recency bias, along with the media’s desperate need to turn everything into contentious clickbait, I think it would be a pretty brilliant tactic, even.

      Of course, what do I know. I’m a moron. Much like your opinion, mine has very little value.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m completely serious. Biden had a month to prepare for a debate, on friendly ground, with rules his team helped define, and he still got his ass handed to him… by a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist.

        There was no way this was even supposed to be a fair fight and Biden came away looking like a lost little boy.

        It doesn’t matter that Trump lied through the whole thing. Biden looked weak, lost, unprepared, incapable, incompetent.

        That’s not how you win.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          We must have watched different debates, then. I saw one weak but curated personality, and one flawed human being. Maybe both of us are just incapable of seeing past our biases?

              • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I can’t say who anyone else should vote for, I’ll be voting for whoever the Democrat is, knowing that if it’s Biden, he’ll lose, if it’s Harris, she’ll lose, and if it’s anyone else, they’ll lose too.

                • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I see. Frankly I can’t live my life with that level of pessimism, because if I adopt that sort of outlook then I’m very likely to sink much deeper into depression, something I’ve struggled with all my life. That sort of thinking genuinely leads me to hopelessness and suicidality.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices.

        This thinking is part of what lost Biden the debate. He thought he was attending a debate in the traditional sense, but that’s not what political debates are. A political debate is about communicating your platfotm and hammering on the other person’s weaknesses (ex. Abortion, him being a convicted felon etc.).

        Biden lost because he sat there like a dope and tried to answer the questions, instead of doing what he claimed was his strategy for taking the debate in the first place; exposing Donald Trump as worse.

        As usual, neoliberals fail to understand the moment and meet it, which is why they’re losers.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          From my point of view Biden didn’t have to lift a finger to expose Donald Trump as worse. Trump seemed happy to do that himself. But then, as I said, I’m a moron.

          Stupid as I am, though, I don’t have to lower myself to calling people “losers”. I retired that word from my vocabulary when I graduated from elementary school.

          • retrospectology@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t mean it as a pejorative, I mean it as a description of one of neoliberal dems defining characteristics; they lose, chronically, when it counts.

            They got a supermajority and they still fumbled. And it’s deliberate losing, that’s their role in the duopoly set-up; to promise progressive change and fail to deliver because of those “wascally wepublicans”. What they are failing to understand is that the Republican party is no longer playing the “one hand washes the other” game to maintain the corporate status quo – the Republican party has been taken over by literal fascists who are out for blood and the neoliberal democrats still think they’re playing the status quo game. They don’t understand that losing comes with real consequences now, but it’s all they know how to do.

            • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I see. In that case, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the world. You seem to want to frame it up as though there’s some master plan or conspiracy, instead of a bunch of individuals working in hotly contested fields, just trying to keep their jobs by doing what they perceive as best at any given moment.

              • retrospectology@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                No. If I misunderstood then campaign finance and lobbying money wouldn’t be the rock solid predictor of how a politician will vote. But money remains one of the most reliable predictors of politician behavior, and most democrats take huge amounts of corporate money to obstruct any real progress.

                • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That doesn’t seem particularly at odds with what I said, but I guess I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out. I’m hoping your plans to change the system work out. Genuinely. If you have actionable, realistic, achievable ideas for removing the corrupting influence of money from the world at large, I’m all ears.

                  In the meantime I’ll to continue to vote for whichever candidate (that stands a realistic chance at winning) I feel will do the least harm to the people I love and the institutions I begrudgingly tolerate.

                  I’ve already mentioned that I’m a moron, this should reinforce that.