• seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Sure I’d rather vote for someone with Bernie’s politics but that’s not on the table right now. I’ll happily vote for Biden over literal christo-fascism and the destruction of our democracy any fucking time.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          When people we won’t vote against literal fascism because the alternative isn’t their ideal candidate then ya. Republicans have no reason to not choose a dictator as their candidate next time when the dictator this time has a legitimate chance of actually winning.

          What needs to happen is for the Republicans to lose so abysmally that they see this shit isn’t going to work and they restructure and kick out the crazies.

    • beardown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’d rather vote for someone with Bernie’s politics but that’s not on the table right now

      And America’s oligarchs will ensure that it never will be

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. Lucy Parsons

      Every election we will be faced with 2 shit choices, and voters are to blame for keeping it that way

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 years ago

    Probably ninety percent of those would want to replace any relevant Democrat that made it on the ballet. Big deal. What a useless story.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Yeah, that’s the expected result for any party that isn’t a cult.

      If 62% wanted to replace him with the same alternative candidate, that would be significant.

    • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yep, but that logic takes away from the manufactured outrage that is enjoyed by so many here in this community.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      2 years ago

      What?

      This is percentage of Biden voters…

      The majority of people who would vote for him. Wishes there was any other option.

      That’s a pretty big story

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 years ago

        Anyone thinking about responding to this poster, please look at their post history so you know what you’re getting into with regard to ANYTHING even tangentially related to Biden.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          True for the OP too. There’s definitely an element on some of the Lemmy communities that seems to exist only or at least primarily to push negative Biden prop (or barring that, anti-US prop in general). I checked Reddit recently for the first time in months (kind of like going to Walmart–avoid it like the plague, but sometimes you just can’t), and I was genuinely astonished at how little anti-Biden content was present by comparison.

          I’m voting for Joe in November, and you should too. Joe’s administration killed non-competes, flipped the procedure for airline canceled and delayed flight refunds (i.e., pro-consumer), and pushed back the exempt employee loophole–and that’s just the news from this week. He’s an awesome president without even considering that the other side is composed entirely of criminals, Russian assets, and fascists.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Joe’s administration killed NDAs,

            I don’t think you mean NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements). I think you mean Non-compete agreements.

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              You are correct. I haven’t seen the two separated in years, so I tend to use NDA as a blanket term. Editing for clarity.

          • Icalasari@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            That actually relieves me. Like, people going, “I won’t vote/will vote 3rd party” seem to not realize that if Biden doesn’t get in, Trump will, and he not only would push genocide MUCH more, but also WILL destroy the electoral system to stay in power and avoid jail.

            Hell, Project 2025 leaking proved this

            So a good reminder that the Fediverse is being echoey helps the fear some

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Like, people going, “I won’t vote/will vote 3rd party” seem to not realize that if Biden doesn’t get in,

              I think people saying that are well aware a 3rd party vote means a second Trump presidency. Most are saying that in bad faith. The posters posting it either have no plan to vote third party, or they’re not even US citizens (as their posts would suggest they are) and they’re not allowed to vote anyway.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I just had to block them. Don’t even need to see the username to know who it is. Engaging with them and even the OP here is nothing but a carnival of bad faith arguments.

        • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Yeah. Dude is a pretty well known right-wing propagandist. This is evident in the fact that they have nothing critical to say about anyone or anything on the right. They’re clearly here to spread propaganda to those that are disillusioned with the system.

          A non vote for Biden from someone who would have voted for him is a clear boon to Trump.

          They know this, and be they’re hoping everyone else doesn’t.

          (This comment will be removed by the mods once the rest of the bots report it enough)

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 years ago

            The above commenter is a well known Hawaiian Pizza lover, he’s the absolute worst. /s

            1. Stop being paranoid about the mods they’re actually pretty fucking reasonable.

            2. Why don’t you just respond to the article. This poster has a habit of posting controversial articles that are critical of Biden’s actions but America is a fucking democracy and we can have an adult discussion about his flaws.

            Having those conversations makes it more likely people will vote for him - compared to just muzzling everyone and saying “he’s so perfect” because we can fucking see his flaws. Silencing discussion drives down voter turn out and low voter turnout is how asshole GOP folks keep getting elected. Also those anti choice church goers are going to blindly vote for the adulterer - so we need to overwhelm the idiot factor.

            • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago
              1. I’m not paranoid about the mods. I’ve dealt with them first hand on this shit.
              2. Discussing flaws is one thing, flat-out suggesting people NOT vote is another.

              No one is suggesting anyone stifle discussion. Nor is anyone saying he’s perfect. But doing nothing but spread ant-Biden shit is clearly one showing their true colors. If we’re going to be fair, and expect fairness in others, let’s actually be fair. And when others aren’t showing that fairness- they absolutely should be called out.

              If someone wants to accuse me of being an anti-Trump liberal- and base said accusation on the results of my comment history… I’ll agree with them, because my comment history is rife with anti-Trump rhetoric.

              But if another posts nothing but anti-Biden rhetoric, and their comment history shows nothing but- should we just…. Pretend there’s no agenda there?

              Should we not notice? Should we not call it out?

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It’s an important fact, but hardly a major or unique case. I know I’ve personally never felt like any of the candidates in any of the elections I remember were great, just “good enough” or “better than some of the alternatives,” I certainly would’ve replaced them if I could.

        Looking at some recent primaries

        Back in 2020, Biden only had 51.7% of the votes in the democratic primaries. That made him by far the biggest single candidate, but that also means that almost half of democrats would have probably been happy to replace them with one of the other 4 candidates if they could (though they would have disagreed on which of the 4.) Most of them would still go on to vote for biden despite him not being their first pick.

        In 2016, trump won with 44.9%, again the biggest single candidate, but that means that 55.1% wanted not trump. Of course most of that majority still held their nose and voted for him in November, but the majority of them probably would have been happy to replace him at that time if they could.

        2008 was really fucking close for the Democrats, Obama beat out Hillary with 48.1% of the vote to her 48%, and the remaining 3.9% voting for various other candidates, that means that the majority (51.9%) of people wanted a candidate other than Obama. Same year, McCain won his primary with 46.7%, so again the majority did not vote for him but for various other candidates.

        And I think it’s pretty safe to say that in just about any election throughout history, voters would like to replace the opposing party’s candidate if they could, no surprise there.

        A really big news story would be if the majority of the party not only would replace their candidate if they could, but were actually in agreement on who they would replace them with. If 6 in 10 Democrats said “We would like to replace Biden with this one specific other person that we all agreed on” then that would be big news.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Replace everyone in the house and senate if youre serious about changing anything

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        They dont do it often enough else these fuckheads that have latched onto the taxmans tit for 30/40 years wouldnt still be there.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Seems like they’d have done better with 62% of the voting public behind them.

        Trump faced an entire gaggle of conservative opponents and rarely failed to clear the 50% mark by state.

        Biden’s biggest defeat was to the 20% of voters who cast spoiled ballots in Michigan. Marianna Williamson and Dean Phillips were barely acknowledged.

        Even RFK Jr isn’t polling at better than 10%.

        Who do these people actually want for the position?

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The RFK brand name carries a lot of weight among boomer voters. This looks less like coordination by either party and more like a dimwit failson cashing in on his name brand before it expires. He’s raised over $72M in his Presidential bid and has numerous friends and family on his campaign payroll.

            My man is an absolute money fountain for the consultancy class. Not as lucrative as the comically overpriced Bloomberg primary bid, but definitely worth the grift on his face.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Bloomberg was a NYC Republican who thought he could Moneyball the Democratic Primary by focusing all his efforts in a few big states. Biden wasn’t running as a moderate candidate in 2020. He was running as a conservative democrat. The moderates - Warren and Klobacher and Buttigieg and Harris - never managed to triangulate a winning position between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because causing division/voter apathy when facing a threat to democracy is a terrible idea

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Democracy is perfectly fine until my candidate loses, at which point democracy is dead until late September when mid-terms start ramping up, and then suddenly democracy works again and we need to get ready to vote in 2026.

          • distractionfactory@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            Democracy is perfectly fine until the candidate that loses refuses to accept the results, tries to retain power by force, then continues to try undermine faith in democracy for 4 years and is somehow still the frontrunner for his party.

              • distractionfactory@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 years ago

                Gore’s VP (Joe)? I don’t remember all of the details, but that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers, not by a sore loser. Won the popular by a decent margin but lost the electoral. It was by a slim enough margin to trigger a recount. As far as contested elections go I thought that could have gone a whole lot worse.

                I’m not sure I get the comparison here.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  that was legitimately a contested election by the numbers

                  Not according to the incoming Republican administration. There are still conservatives who flog that election to prove how little Democrats care about democracy.

                  I’m not sure I get the comparison here.

                  If Gore had squeaked out a win even in the face of abundant ratfvckery in Florida and Ohio, Republicans would have insisted the election was a fraud in the same way they insisted Clinton stole the election in 1992 and Carter in 1976 and Kennedy stole it in 1960.

                  Because this is a partisan issue, there’s no real clean line between legitimate victory and election theft from the perspective of the partisans themselves. And because both sides routinely fight dirty (Nixon was as aggressive fucking democrats in southern Illinois as Kennedy was in fucking Republicans in Chicago), it is often difficult to talk about a clean race when the reality is more often that one person or the other lost in a dirty knife fight.

        • Ilikecheese@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s not though. Even though we’d prefer a different candidate, everyone who isn’t a complete moron has at least agreed that we’re gonna stick with Biden because he’s better than the alternative and it’s not even close.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        no primary challenger has ever beaten an incumbent for president

        So, a bit of history.

        https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/

        Before primary elections became the dominant way to pick a nominee, party leaders were more able to either shut down challengers or smoothly pass the nomination to someone else. Notably, four incumbents who were denied the nomination in the 19th century — John Tyler, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur — had been Vice Presidents who rose to the Presidency following the deaths of their predecessors, perhaps suggesting they’d never won their parties’ full support in the first place.

        Then

        In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, President Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.

        Also

        TIME reported that McCarthy’s surprisingly strong showing in the New Hampshire primary was a statement that was “as much anti-Johnson as antiwar,” citing a NBC poll that found more than half of Democrats didn’t even know McCarthy’s position on Vietnam. Less than a week after New Hampshire, Attorney General Robert Kennedy jumped into the race. Then, on March 31, Johnson announced he wasn’t going to run for re-election.

        As TIME reported in the April 12, 1968, article on Johnson dropping out, “So low had Johnson’s popularity sunk, said one Democratic official, that last-minute surveys before the Wisconsin primary gave him a humiliating 12% of the vote there.”

        It should be noted that Ford nearly lost to Reagan in 1976

        He racked up 1,187 delegates compared to Ronald Reagan’s 1,070, which was barely more than the 1,130 he needed to secure the nomination.

        And Kennedy nearly beat Carter four years later

        Carter won 36 primaries that year, but Kennedy’s 12 victories included important ones in New York and California, and he didn’t concede until Aug. 11, 1980, at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

        In another historic race, William Taft was nearly edged out by Theodore Roosevelt, who went on to place second behind Woodrow Wilson in 1912. That gave Taft the dubious distinction of being the only incumbent to come in at third place in a general election.

  • ganksy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    You are a one-trick-pony with the argument in these articles. I’m going to start voting even harder now.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think people forget how significant a moment 2020 felt.

      Democrats are in for a rude awakening when the turnout plummets this cycle because normal people don’t feel like it’s the end of democracy like they do.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        And then those normal people are in for a rude awakening when it is the end of democracy as we know it.

        “I didn’t think the Supreme Court would actually overturn Roe!” – People in 2016 who said to not threaten them with the Supreme Court

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m sure that’ll be a great relief to the normal people suffering who didn’t take the warnings seriously.

            And I don’t know if I’d call it fear mongering considering the concerns about abortion and the Supreme Court came true. If someone chooses not to take warnings seriously after that, well… They shouldn’t be surprised if this next set of warnings comes true as well.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Tell that to the dems, man! If their scaremongering warnings aren’t winning over voters, maybe they should try popular governance.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-25/us-aid-to-israel-support-drops-as-outrage-over-war-gaza-grows?embedded-checkout=true

                51% of likely voters in swing states “strongly or somewhat support aid to Israel”. Considering that is the popular opinion among crucial voters, are you fine with Biden’s position on Israel? It’s just “popular governance” after all.

                Maybe Bernie should’ve also said he was a through and through capitalist to try and win the primary through “popular governance”?

                Very poor argument.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  That link is paywalled, so unless you share the text i guess ill take your word for it.

                  Regardless, that’s only “popular” if you limit your definition of popular to swing states. Nationally, only 46% of voters(note this is more accurate when limited to registered voters) support more aid to israel (Quinnepaic, April 24), even fewer when limited to democratic and independent voters.

                  Quinnipiac poll, support for aid to israel by demographic:

                  64% over 65 years old 60% Republicans 50% White 46% all voters 46% independents 42% Hispanic 36% Democrats 31% Black 26% under 35 years old

                  The Bernie point is actually interesting, because historically “capitalism” is broadly popular, but his socialist policies are extremely popular, which I suppose would suggest polling is kinda junk as a predictor for popularity anyway.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves

            Not the people who actually took away abortion rights?

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Although, as I’ve read, people who don’t vote are more likely to vote for trump (basically the argument is that trump convinced them he was an outsider, and appealed to people who don’t normally go out to vote because they feel there is no point), so a drop in turnout would actually favor Dems. And I do think Dems will be fired up more over abortion.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I thought most people considered this election even more important than the last!

      The most important election in history is always the one happening next year.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thank you. For supposedly being “the most important election of our lives” a lot of people don’t want to hear the truth that Trump could win again and it’ll be Biden’s fault.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s a little late for Biden to terminate his campaign. Best thing he can do is pick a progressive VP (I don’t know much about Kamala right now) and then resign day 1.

        I think Democrats have focused too much on who they don’t want as President for the last 8 years, and now the party doesn’t have any other candidates that have the name/brand power to go toe to toe with trump and his base of far-right brainwashed quislings. The best bet to win this thing is to run Biden at this point, but they need to build some candidate brand/visibility for their next election.

  • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not me. Fuck Trump. Biden is a good guy and I would vote for him no matter what but I think the idea of Harris getting to be president because Biden is too old and dies is a win win. So the Biden - Harris ticket is fuck yeah from me.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think the idea of Harris getting to be president because Biden is too old and dies is a win win

      Fuck Harris

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Absolutely, and if I could vote in your election, I would be voting Biden, I would just be unhappy about it.

          Primaries are a different story; dissent is what primaries are for.

          Fuck Harris though

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    This community by far has the worst takes on US politics

    Even people on the meme sub understand Biden isn’t some magical deity who is going to save us from the literal incarnation of satan.

    Why are people even remotely surprised the incumbent supporting a genocide is not popular, and that any opposition must be russian trolls or chinese propaganda.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      because media has a narrative of conflict to push, and the fact that biden is overwhelmingly more popular than trump doesnt make good headlines.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      The people who look for the politics sub to go post in are generally not the most reasonable about their beliefs

      • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Any state after super Tuesday has no voice. I won’t vote for Biden but at this point I don’t know if I’ll just cast no vote or if there will be another option?

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well you can vote for the one or two other candidates depending on your state that are on the ballot. Of course they both suck. So you know do with that what you will.

  • Dreizehn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I fully agree, who in the hell would want two old coots, unless you want somebody that will be easy to control.

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    John Stewart for POTUS.

    I don’t care if he doesn’t want it; that just makes him more suitable.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean, not just America, the entire world wishes you had gotten your shit together for this one, but land of the free/home of the brave really is just a bumper sticker slogan I guess.