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.
- 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.
- 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
I'd take him over Trump in a heartbeat, and intend to vote for him if he's the candidate. That said, there's nothing that can make these concerns about his mental capability go away, and he's already behind in the polling. They either need to come up with a plan to turn it around, or he should step aside.
This late, I fear massive fracturing. This is exactly what the Republicans want. I'm voting for anyone who is opposing Project 2025 in the end. Its just the worst time to not have an inspiring incumbent. Especially one who is intent on letting this all play out.
This is more time than most countries campaign seasons and the overwhelming rallying cry hasn't be "Biden", it's been "stop Trump". Either Harris will take over and there will be no meaningful fracturing because a vote for Biden is already effectively a vote for President Harris or we'll have a rush primary among mostly moderate options, which will limit how riled up people can get about any of them. I'm not particularly excited by any of the proposed options, but even the one I like the least will make me much more confident than keeping with Biden and waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It's not ideal, but Joe Biden will lose, so not ideal is a step in the right direction.
Its just a terrible time for the right to have a cult leader and it feels like we have nobody. I dont think the polls mean as much. But I remember them from 2020 and Biden was not trailing this hard. So you're probably right but its still not good and still could cause fracturing in a time when we basically need our own demagogue.
I feel like being an inspiring charismatic leader is kind of incompatible with the gauntlet that would get someone pre-approved as a party-selected candidate. I'm having a hard time thinking of an establishment-favored figure who's really charismatic. Buttigieg maybe? But he was sort of out of left field and it feels like he's been more of a tool to deploy to soften bad news stories than someone the establishment is raising up as a potential next big thing. Booker is probably the most party-supported charismatic figure, but I don't think relentless positivity is enough to lead in times where lots of people are legitimately angry.
My theory is that Obama, for all the success he brought to the party, shook it up in ways the establishment structure really didn't like. Since then they haven't really been looking for the next Obama, because populism is dangerous to established power structures. That's why the 2020 convention didn't have a keynote speaker, it had 17 all saying a line or two from a speech, which means none of the "rising voices" actually has a chance to break out.