this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
-13 points (38.6% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3795 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Parties almost never run primaries with an incumbent. It’s stupid as all hell to throw away a known quantity who already won.

his current approval rating is something like 30%, across the board. only 61% of democrats say they approve, and that number is sinking lower. do you really call that "popular"? keep in mind the sheer number of individuals who, in modern politics do not actually have a party- many of whom still tend to be progressive anyhow.

incumbents who are so weak as to let people think it's a good idea to primary them... usually don't do so hot in the regular election. Because. you know. They're weak. Look at Ford vs Reagan, Carter Vs Kenedy (where carter won the primary and lost to Reagan.). H.W. vs Buchanan should be pretty useful here... H.W. won the primary, lost to Clinton. there's a pretty clear pattern- even if the causes are less clear- of incumbents who get primaried loosing the regular election.

which, it's pretty stupid to run somebody whose known to be not particularly popular, too. Or. You know, Biden could do what he promised, step down after his first term. And then move to support and campaign for someone whose actually not smeared with the stink currently coming of Biden.

[–] modcolocko@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You did not address their main point, which is that there simply isn't a candidate that has a better, or even comparable, chance of winning.

Approval ratings are also notoriously inaccurate, especially for dems.

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

Even Biden has admitted recently there is in fact “probably 50 democrats who can beat trump”

As for accuracy… it’s not that they’re necessarily inaccurate, it’s more a fundamentally flawed assumption on what the poll means… and who responded.

The 38% of democrats in that poll that are unhappy with Biden , are never going for trump. We know they’re probably not gen z and millennials (who aren’t home to answer calls, and aren’t.

While many- quite likely most will “fall in line” in November…. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate not actually loathed by at least a 1/3 the base? Wouldn’t that be easier to win? Biden’s incumbency has more baggage than most