this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
339 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19594 readers
4970 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Old man was okay until the shit debate job then it was old man bad.

We were hearing everything from "he's too old" to "he's got dementia" for months. The debate was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Biden was trending at -5 before the debate.

Then guys who worked with Hillary made them stop calling trump and co. weird or saying “we’re not going back”, which were both effective.

"We're not going back" was her campaign slogan and there were people chanting it right up until election day.

I think they started backing off on the "weird" thing after the Trump/Harris debate. Trump gave the much-remembered "They're eating the dogs!" line, which itself would have been a campaign-ender for literally any other human being, and everybody started trying to use that against him. Which makes sense. Why stick to something like "weird" when your opponent is giving you such juicy ammo to use against them? I'd have done the same thing, and I think so would anybody else.

The problem is it didn't work. Voters heard that and said "Yes, I'd like to have more of that."

Top that off with trying to peel away R voters, muh egg prices, her refusing to say Biden did a bad job when she was on the view (she could have dodged and said she’d do better, lets be real.) and refusing Rogan entirely and you have a recipe for a bad time wrt undecideds.

There is never a situation where a candidate is going to say that an incumbent member of their own party is doing a bad job. That's just an unrealistic expectation to have. She would have been playing right into Trump's hands, who would have used that to make the last few months of Biden's presidency even more difficult and miserable. The most you could have expected is something along the lines of "We disagree on the finer points of some things......". But you are never going to hear a candidate basically shit on the leader of their own party like that.

And remember that she was Vice President. Go back and watch Trump during the campaign. When Biden dropped out, Trump essentially just swapped out Biden's name for Harris and continued on with his campaign, acting as if Harris had been President for the past four years. He convinced a whole bunch of those undecideds that the "Harris Administration" was the source of all their problems, even though the VP has little role in day to day administration. To these undecideds, the "Biden Administration" and the "Harris Administration" were one and the same, and her saying that Biden did a bad job would be like saying she did a bad job. Trump would have been beating her over the head with that up and down the campaign trail. She would have sabotaged her own campaign and basically taken a shit on the last 3 months of Biden's presidency in the process.