Of course he is. The DNC spent the last four years with their heads up their asses thinking that this election is in the bag. They had time to set-up a different candidate, and they refused. They had time to strategize for a win, and decided to do fucking nothing.
I swear to god if Democrats throw this fucking election just like 2016 because they refuse to take fascism seriously, I will punch anyone who tries to claim it’s the left’s fault.
Those same allies thought Hillary was too. Pathetic.
Biden couldn’t beat Trump in a debate, how is he supposed to win an election?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Biden isn’t the guy to run if they truly fear the end of Democracy.
The more they pull this shit, the harder it is to not believe they’re just the fascists’ controlled opposition.
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.
They need more Bernies Sanders, AOCs… And that katie person… I forget their last name.
Katie Porter. Basically a younger Elizabeth Warren (who was taught by Warren no less).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Democrats are desperate to lose
Both parties are more successful as opposition parties than they are actually “leading.”
Democrats aren’t even successful as a controlling party.
They’re very successful at maintaining the status quo.
“He has the same 34% approval rate as Trump, that means he’s the only one who can beat him.”
Neoliberalism; not even once.
The Dems really messed up imo by not screwing the others out of primaries and debates with Biden. They totally rigged it for Biden and now they don’t have much choice but to keep trying to push forward, but they knew what they were getting into. They’ve known Biden wasn’t well for a long time
Exactly, the moment to replace him was from the get-go. Now we’re logistically in too deep without splitting the entire party and essentially just handing the win to Trump. (Thanks so much DNC, it’s totally clear you know better than the voters in your own party. /s)
I blame ineffectual Democrats who are more concerned with their power inside their own party for the rise of fascism as much as the fascists themselves, because their fucking buffoonery and chicanery literally enable the fascist Republican crime spree.
I mean fuck, look how long they carted out Dianne Feinstein pretending she was still a functional human being instead of just running anyone the fuck else.
How often does either party primary an incumbent president? Wikipedia only lists five notable one. And also has this little factoid that shows it usually backfires for the party.
Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election.
Edit - Forgot my wiki link. =(
Excellent point, I wasn’t aware of that one. Not that we should always treat the past as indicative of the future, but rather, it’s clear that choosing such a path is playing with fire. For a litany of reasons.
Sadly, with Trump, we can’t afford to play with fire, period.
I wonder how many of those 5 had an incumbent who was no longer capable of running a country.
He’s running the country right now, unless you think it’s really Obama and/or the Lizard People.
Never so far. There’s a first time for everything.
But there’s also the option of not primarying him and just not running Biden at all.
Of course they did, they’re his top 5 allies, lol
