politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, perhaps Gavin Newsom. Even Kamala Harris would have a better chance than Biden. Next to no one is voting Democratic because of Biden, people are voting against Trump. You could swap in literally anyone who isn't 90% corpse and get at least as good a result, and almost certainly better. This idea that people would be turned off the Democrats because Joe Biden wasn't the candidate is a joke and I don't understand why anyone would be under the impression.
Yes, Literally anybody! What a silly premise for question… This is Hillary Clinton all over again. Democrats are being force fed the worst possible candidate we can get.
With that said, Kamala Harris is the best answer I think, for logistical reasons. But let her choose a good running mate that may bring some excitement and I think the democratic voters may come out to vote.
This IS Hillary all over again but it's only because you dumb fucks are choking down obvious propaganda and asking for more. Just like 2016.
I would be willing to believe JB could do it. don't know enough about Whitmer, think that Newsom has a chance but could just as easily be a Mitt Romney, and personally think you're a little out to lunch if you actually think Kamala would win when Hilary didn't.
Post debate polls have had Harris up on Biden in swing states. Could she win? Maybe, maybe not. But it looks like she'd at least lose less badly than Biden. His debate performance was a death blow.
Kamala has been polling better then Biden. the problem isn't her popularity, it's Biden looking like he's died but doctors have refused to call it so they keep dragging him around. he even tried to salvage his debate performance with an interview with Stephanopoulos and still looked dead.
idk if anyone believes he can take another 4 years without the doctors finally calling it and Kamala replacing him anyway. like, people who think Kamala can't be a better president than TFG would probably vote TFG anyway.
also it's not like Biden won last time because everybody loves him. no one does. I've never seen an actual fan. he won mostly through negative partisanship against TFG.
I actually think he's a pretty good president, who got a lot done quietly, including getting through some bipartisan stuff (when he didn't have a majority across both houses) that I don't think many other people would have managed because he's gently spoken and not a tub thumping shouter. I think he has a good heart even if his politics are noticeably further to the right than mine.
AOC would be great. She gets it. She understands ordinary people, which is rare in US politics. Biden is pretty good. Not great at all, just pretty good.
I like that he's not in the news every day (saying something stupid or nasty showing that he doesn't understand how stuff works or can't take criticism like Toddler-brained Trump), but the downside of quietly getting on with the job is that people aren't as aware of what he's done.
exactly. i don't think he has a good heart but he definitely did some good things, more so than a lot of presidents, and some of it were things that i thought were impossible in the corporate states of america, like the union stuff.
however, these things are not very exciting to talk about so they don't get much consistent coverage like the age-related gaffs do, and people don't have a long memory. and optics matter, especially if you're a democrat.
sure, a republican can be a racist, traitor, pedo rapist who openly talks about how much he would love to fuck his own daughter, but a democrat can be disqualified for saying "yeah" a bit too loudly (I'm exaggerating Dean's situation here but there are other ridiculous examples).
and the debate performance... i said this before but he didn't look old. Bernie looks old. Biden looked dead.
it's not about the number of years with this guy. he doesn't look like he's all there. he also massively fucked up by answering a question about his strongest issue, abortion, and tied it into his weakest, immigration. that's not just a fumble, that's throwing.
he also did an interview to assure voters that was a one time thing... and it didn't look good. he fucked up there too. he was asked what would happen if he stayed in the race and lost and he said "as long as i gave it my all..." -- yeah, joe? what? it doesn't matter? the question is what if your all isn't enough, joe... and your answer is basically "well i just wanna do it anyway and if it doesn't work out, i'll still be satisfied.
I don't think the lack of coverage of Biden's accomplishments can be totally blamed on the media. Biden's team should be communicating more effectively and they just aren't imo. That's unfortunately a requirement of the office that Biden is not able to fulfill, especially not in his current state, not to mention both his press secretary and his vice president somehow managing to be just as equally terrible communicators as the demented 80 year old that's apparently steering the ship.
Thanks. That's about the most genuine response I've had on this issue.
Then you aren't informed enough to even be talking about this
And yet you want to put Whitmer on a national stage??
The child above me and their lack of knowledge has no relation to prudent political decision making, and their opinions are not reflective or representative of anything
A random ignoramus on the internet does not determine anything, much less what is wise for the country or the Democratic Party.
Are you serious? The vast majority of the voting age citizenry are ignoramuses.
I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything
If you only look at each individual tree as a tree, you'll fail to realize you're in a forest.
So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?
Your points aren't making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child's comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.
Jesus you people are insufferable. Not knowing about Whitmer is a single anecdote that is consistent with a trend that is quite obvious and so help me god if you do that sealioning bullshit demanding a peer reviewed study about Whitmers name recognition
What trend?
Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we're on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter
No one knows who that is.
Doesn't want to run.
Doesn't want to run.
A Black woman? You're in fucking fantasy land.