DNC Leadership: We won’t have a real primary, that’ll weaken the incumbent, who’ll probably win anyway. And remember, if you don’t get behind our anointed candidate, you’re anti-democratic.
The numbers are already coming in, the debate hurt Biden, and badly. Why does “Democracy is on the line” only mean voters are required to show up to vote for whoever DNC Leadership chose for us? Why do they have no obligation to put their best foot forward?
They’re gonna bet democracy on “We don’t really have a plan to turn this around, we’re just gonna keep doing what we’ve been doing and hope things get better.” The man is ancient, his brain is not gonna suddenly start improving. People know how aging works, and know that even if he never flops that badly on camera again, it’s just because he was never on camera at the wrong time.
And every day he holds off on giving up the nomination is a day his actually viable replacement is deprived of. The latest DNC internal polling shows him even farther behind in swing states and on the verge of losing some reliably blue states.
I don’t think people are downvoting a fact; I think they’re downvoting a comment which doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the discussion, since by your own admission it’s a just a fact and a fact without context or stated implications is virtually meaningless.
DNC Leadership: We won’t have a real primary, that’ll weaken the incumbent, who’ll probably win anyway. And remember, if you don’t get behind our anointed candidate, you’re anti-democratic.
The numbers are already coming in, the debate hurt Biden, and badly. Why does “Democracy is on the line” only mean voters are required to show up to vote for whoever DNC Leadership chose for us? Why do they have no obligation to put their best foot forward?
They’re gonna bet democracy on “We don’t really have a plan to turn this around, we’re just gonna keep doing what we’ve been doing and hope things get better.” The man is ancient, his brain is not gonna suddenly start improving. People know how aging works, and know that even if he never flops that badly on camera again, it’s just because he was never on camera at the wrong time.
It’s 4 months before the election.
Edit: Look at this - a classic case of a basic fact being down voted on Lemmy.
And every day he holds off on giving up the nomination is a day his actually viable replacement is deprived of. The latest DNC internal polling shows him even farther behind in swing states and on the verge of losing some reliably blue states.
And the national convention hasn’t happened yet. He’s not officially the candidate until appointed at the convention.
I guess the point is that to replace Biden would drive chaos that would last longer than 4 months and be self defeating.
Biden is self defeating. I don’t see how he can win at this point. 2020 was pretty close.
Then just resign yourself to Trump winning, and spend the next years whining.
Or push to have another nominee, one who can beat the extremely unpopular republican.
Slipping a new nominee in has the result of chaos. But, if you consider that chaos will not be a problem, then you don’t remember Eagleton.
Sounds to me like chaos is a threat and not a prediction.
When centrists don’t get their very first choice, they form PACs to elect Republicans.
Any more brilliant political insight?
Fuck off with that. People aren’t downvoting a basic fact, they’re downvoting the implication that 4 months means we’re stuck with Biden.
You make your own implications.
That’s called a fact and there is literally nothing you can do about it.
So in response to my lengthy rant about why Biden needs to step aside, you just happened to notice the date, with no deeper meaning?
You’re arguing in bad faith now.
Sadly that’s usually their style
Like I said, the implications are yours. That is a fact. In that you don’t like it changes nothing.
I don’t think people are downvoting a fact; I think they’re downvoting a comment which doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the discussion, since by your own admission it’s a just a fact and a fact without context or stated implications is virtually meaningless.
So, no implications for you. How convenient
That’s not what I said or implied. Why don’t you state your argument?
You said implication is meaningless, therefore there is no 8mplication for you. But, you choose to spend time on it.
deleted by creator
Fuck
The circlejerk is real on this post. Tons of bad takes and misinformation from the same “genocide Joe” shitposters as usual.