this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
604 points (94.8% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

3536 readers
236 users here now

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
PugJesus@lemmy.world
604
Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to c/noncredibledefense@lemmy.world
266 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kava@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

i think it was perfectly timed

a) after the primary was informally settled

b) a couple weeks before the candidate was formally sworn in

If that was the case, they would have done it sooner

sooner and there may have been a real primary contest. too risky. they did it with just enough time to sort of "zerg rush" Kamala into the primary without giving anyone time to mount a meaningful attempt at the primary

and unprecedented, move. It’s a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.

unprecedented, yes. it's the first time in US history since we've been using the primary system that a candidate got the party nomination without a single vote being cast for them

risky, also yes. but they (I think correctly) determined that Biden was a lost cause.

so it was either a) go with the guy you know you're gonna lose or b) go with someone you will probably lose with

b is the logical choice