this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
78 points (78.3% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4644 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Key quotes:

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working furiously behind the scenes to put pressure on President Biden to reconsider his place at the top of the 2024 ticket, according to a number of Democratic lawmakers familiar with her efforts.

The Speaker emerita is talking to a broad swath of House Democrats — from front-liners in tough districts to hardened veterans with institutional clout — to pump the brakes on the notion that Biden should definitively be the party’s nominee heading into November, these lawmakers said.

Pelosi has not said Biden should exit the race, but the lawmakers said she harbors deep concerns about Biden’s ability to defeat former President Trump, and she’s fighting to prevent the party from rubber-stamping Biden’s candidacy before there’s a broader discussion about the potentially damaging consequences of that decision.

Note: This is a "breaking" story, as in, its been leaked and is just now showing up on multiple outlets.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Would be AWFULLY convenient for trump if the Democratic party splinters rn

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Which is why, whatever happens, we're voting Blue, and reminding everyone else who wants to not live (or die) under a fascist regime to do the same.

But Biden's advantages of a proven track record, incumbency, and massive name recognition, simply may not outweigh the damage anymore. The perception of his decline is severe, and there may be some truth to it - it's certainly not a reputation he's going to shed in the next five months.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Democrats will vote for a blue pet rock. The point is to get someone that independents will vote for. And if both candidates are a bunch of old cooters that keep mixing up names, they'll stay home or vote third party.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah. He needs to be replaced at this point.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The perception of his decline is severe, and there may be some truth to it - it’s certainly not a reputation he’s going to shed in the next five months.

Which even if true, is just absurdist considering his opponent can't even finish a sentence without switching to a new topic and turning a statement into word salad. 2024 is freaking cursed.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

... yeah. We live in a kafkaesque nightmare.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Look, Biden should fuck off, but I’ll vote D no matter what, and there’s a lot of people who share my inclinations.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, but things might get ugly fast and that leaves an opening for trump

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago

Lets just all agree that if you plan to vote blue no matter who then you're not the target audience.

If the Democrats want to generate enthusiasm for the election then all they have to do is start making promises that appeal to the undecideds.

It's easy, just send Israel's arms shipments and financial support to Ukraine instead.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Would be AWFULLY convenient for trump

Would also be convenient for him if the Dems stick with Biden.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Dem chance at a clean change from Biden to a younger option was last year, not 4 months prior, at least not with how the antiquated US election system works. Changing it now is fucking stupid, the table has been set. People are calling to flip the table because somehow they're just now realizing that old people are old. This is what the Dem leadership has created, and regardless of their second guessing now it's what we need to live with.

Just another in a long running series of stupid decisions by Dem leadership over the last 30 years, always shooting themselves in the foot and assuming people will still vote for them. With middling success every time, yet never learning anything because the same old fucks are still running it all somehow.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

4 months should be enough time still, IMO

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Enough time for what? There's no way to put together another primary. So who in the Democratic party gets to play kingmaker?

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

So who in the Democratic party gets to play kingmaker?

The same party insiders who've played kingmaker during the last two primaries

[–] ilovededyoupiggy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Pretty fuckin scary just how literal that word is now, after the immunity ruling.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Idgaf. Let them pick a king and then I'll vote for him so we don't get Trump

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Just so we're clear, what if the king is a woman?

I would definitely vote for King Margo. "Ovary up, bitch."

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I would absolutely vote for King Margo.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you're going to vote blue regardless then your opinions on primary elections and the candidates can be safely ignored.

The people you're trying to reach will not vote blue no matter who. They need to be convinced, given enthusiasm rather than apathy and derision.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The people you're trying to reach will not vote blue no matter who. They need to be convinced, given enthusiasm rather than apathy and derision.

I mean, exactly. The people who need reaching aren't gonna vote for old man Biden, so swapping to literally anyone gives a better chance at beating Trump, and we don't have the luxury of time. A random choice will have some chance to attract those voters Biden won't.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago

Agreed. Literally anyone else would increase the margin of undecideds.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If you're going to complain about the DNC playing kingmaker, I hope you're equally outraged about Hillary's campaign being given financial control of the party before the 2016 primary, or Obama convincing multiple candidates to drop out and give Biden enough room to beat Bernie in 2020, or the DNC making the South Carolina primary the first on the calendar to sure up support for Biden in 2024. If that doesn't outrage you, you might consider the possibility that you don't actually care that the Democrats pick kings, just that your preferred candidate might not be crowned.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Oh, you don't like it?

How the fuck about that.

[–] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

It would be their own fault when it happens, The Biden we are seeing now is the Biden that they've known about for the last 4 years. Yet they still pushed him to run for reelection and sent their minions out to social media to claim anyone pointing out his problems are either Russian bots, paid by Putin, or Republicans.