• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No. We’re “un-fucked”.

    We cant win with Biden.

    We CAN win without him.

    Finally the dense mother fuckers who have been denying Biden’s inadequacy have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

    We’ll have a brokered convention (like all conventions before 1970’s), we’ll get “generic corporate democrat”, and they’ll be instantly polling in the low to mid 50’s and we’ll actually have a fucking chance.

    Biden has had no chance at winning this election at any point in his candidacy. Ever. Look at the polling. Look at the data. He’s never stood a chance and plenty of people here and elsewhere have been trying to get this through some extremely thick skulls that have basically been insisting that we need to run an un-electable candidate.

    Well the goose is cooked. The rat is out of the bag. Here comes the moose or whatever. He’s done. Adios Biden, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You did fine on some stuff but wow you fucked up on Gaza/Israel.

    Minutes after that debate Newsom was on MSNBC. We’re gonna get Newsom, or maybe Inslee; a way smarter choice would be Witmer or Andy Beshear.

    And guess what? Litterally ANY GENERIC CANDIDATE PUTS 10 POINTS BACK ON THE BOARD.

    Bam. Switch candidates and Democrats are instantaneously back in this race.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Good luck with Project 2025, because that’s what third party voters are voting for.

      We need to get rid of FPTP voting before a 2 party system can be derailed.

    • classic@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not only switch candidates, but have Biden have the humility to back that person. Do it in the name of Democracy, you know: this election is too important and I realize we need a stronger candidate than I can be. That would sell well, and that’s what’s needed for better or worse: a good narrative

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Ελληνικά
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, it takes a lot of chutzpah to say, “Look, I tried, but I can’t do it. This guy can do it, and I’m giving him my full support, you should too”.

        I think just about anyone who has the confidence to run for President is narcissistic enough to think they are the only person who can do the job, so Biden, or Trump, stepping down willingly is not going to happen.

        • classic@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh, nothing about our culture would permit someone to do that. I don’t expect him to. It’s just a nice fantasy

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      This probably doesn’t work, and it’s probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we’re coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.

      If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.

      A few reasons:

      1. Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.
      2. Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.
      3. The truth may be that the party would rather just let Trump win. That sounds unthinkable, but this isn’t a secret cabal of idealists we’re talking about: it’s a bunch of self-interested rich people who want to put themselves in power. Getting them to do anything for the public good is difficult under the best circumstances. They could easily decide–rightly–that Biden is still their best shot at beating Trump. That was the call in 2020, and it paid off. Don’t forget that many of these same names being batted around now were active in the party four years ago. Newsom loses to Trump, and he’s largely seen as the best alternative. If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning. You might decide it’s just a lost cause and start planning for a four year long nightmare.
      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.

        Bro Newsom was on MSNBC 15 seconds after the debate ended. Newsom is 100% gunning for the job.

        Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.

        This is a real issue that I think you are right to bring up. Harris can basically put the brakes on/ gatekeep whomever the nominee is going to be.

        If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning.

        Yeah you are just wildly off base here. Biden was at between a 5-20% chance of winning the election prior to this debate (not polling, but probability). He’ll be in the 3-10% range after this. Did you watch the post debate coverage? CNN’s only topic of conversation was that we need to replace Biden. This is CNN! They are the party insiders. He’s cooked.

        • Xhieron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Newsom was on MSNBC singing Joe’s praises, just like he would have done regardless, because Newsom wants to be president, but Newsom also polls worse than Biden. That’s not hypothetical. Those polls already exist, and a drop in Biden’s numbers isn’t automatically a boost for Newsom. If Newsom thinks losing in 24 hurts his viability in 28, he wouldn’t do it. And who could blame him? It’s five months to the election.

          The point is: It’s possible that all of the options are bad. Biden was in the mid-forties before the debate and the thirties after. He went from near toss-up to probably losing if the election were yesterday/today. Newsom might out-poll Biden today, but that’s not the contest.

          The contest is with Trump. It’s not good enough to poll better than Biden. You have to actually carry all of Biden’s states and then some. If I’m Newsom and deciding whether to try to cobble together a five-month campaign and limp to November to save the DNC from itself and protect Amtrak Joe’s legacy when I’m starting 15 points in the hole or run my own campaign against the likes of a Haley or DeSantis also-ran once Trump is term-barred, dead, or both in four years, I’m not taking a risk at the convention unless someone makes me very, very confident that I could win.

          And there’s the rub. Newsom wants to be president, and he’d love to be president in six months, but he’s not going to take over a campaign that’s already lost. If the party thinks Trump wins no matter what–not an unreasonable conclusion–why on earth would they burn their best shot of a rebound in 28?

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Uh… okay, bro. You know that Donald Trump is also running in this election, right? Biden could be running single digits, and it still wouldn’t change the calculus: If a Biden alternative can’t beat Trump, they’re not going to put an albatross around the neck of their political career just to lose in November.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You’ve got the entire thing backwards: Biden is the albatross.

                ANY other democrat polls better than Biden. Biden is the worst possible democrat to be running. Period. Except maybe Hillary, and even then, she’d be doing better than Biden right now.

                You swap out Biden with literally any hollow blue suit, and you are suddenly 10 points up in the polls.

                • Xhieron@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Except there’s no such thing as a hollow blue suit! Any alternative to Biden has to be a real live human being, probably with real live political aspirations of their own. That means they’re going to want to win. Anybody who stands any chance of being anywhere remotely close to competitive also stands a chance of outright winning under better circumstances in four years.

                  You’re asking an ambitious politician to take a real, serious risk of political suicide just to save face, and the reality is that no matter who your replacement is, polling better than Biden isn’t a win condition. Winning the election in November is the only good outcome. All other outcomes are bad not only for the nation but also personally for whoever replaces Biden.

                  Sure, you can run a would-never-win-or-even-run-anyway candidate, but like I said: that’s essentially conceding the election, and Biden can do that on his own.

    • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      LOL. A lot of flowery language there but not much substance. The Dems can’t switch now. Trump can instantly snatch on to that and attack whoever replaces Biden as an inferior desperate backup. Trump will say you Democrats have no idea what they’re doing and they can’t even stand behind their incumbent. This isn’t only about 2024 but also about the midterms. Who would vote for a party that backstabs their incumbent?

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah your just wrong.

        You obviously don’t know the rules for the DNC or how primary’s work, or have any kind of meaningful political acumen. You are your archetypes have been spouting this plainly wrong “political wisdom” both here and across cable news for months, years even. And reality has now bucked your claims.

        Bidens not the nominee. He lost that last night. And it’s a good thing. He’s losing dramatically to Trump right now.

        • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ll eat my hat and comment here if Biden doesn’t gets his nomination. I didn’t say Biden is the nominee. I didn’t even use the word “nominee”. Its you who keeps attacking the straw man. But you know what? I’m 100% sure the DNC will nominate Biden. That debate performance was bad but he ain’t losing his presumptive nomination. Don’t confuse reality with what you want to happen.

        • tacosplease@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Such confidence in statements that will be proven wrong in a matter of days. LOL. You’ll forget these comments by then though.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I mean I’m taking bets.

            I’ll take 20:1 if you feel so generous as to give me those odds.

            I’ll lay down $20: Biden isn’t the nominee; and a second $20: Biden is does not win the Presidential election.

            If I’m wrong on the nominee, you get $20. If I’m wrong on them winning the presidency, another $20.

            If I’m right on the nominee, you pay me $400. If I’m right on them not winning the Presidency (for any reason), that’s another $400 you owe me.

            Bet? Or coward that doesn’t really believe what they believe when they are held accountable?

            If you don’t like those odds, feel free to offer odds you prefer and I’ll consider them.

            • tacosplease@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              How would we enforce the bet?

              Why 20:1 and not 1:1?

              Or even 1:20 if you’re so confident?

              Believe in yourself. Take the 1:20 bet.

              That’ll show me.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                20:1 specifically?

                https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

                That’s just the odds of Biden (or Trump for that matter) keeling over for literally any reason whatsoever based on the social security actuarial table. So if I can get 20:1, I should be break even betting against any octogenarian.

                There is a little bit better than a 1 in 15 chance, that for any 81 year old, they’ll die that year. So I hedged it to 1:20 as insurance, because I figured I’m really only betting on the first 9 months of the year. If I can get 1:20, that’s break even odds (actually slightly in my favor). Also, figure the presidency, campaigning; that shit aint a walk in the park. Probably more likely still to die in office than a standard octogenarian.

                I’ll give you 10:1 if you bet at least 50 bucks. I lose, you make $50; I win, I make $500. Hows that sound?

                Edit: As to how to enforce it, we can make a community and pin it there. ITs similar to what we used to do in a bar I frequented where we would bet pints (very similarly) on whatever was happening. There was a cork-board and bets would get pinned to it. And I trust you.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Your party (Democrat) is peppered with bad elements for the U.S. (Marxist, Socialist, Communist etc…). You mentioned a staunch communist, Newsom. Look at the disaster he made California into. The droves of companies and citizens leaving or have left California. The silly penalty he plans to implement for Californian residents who leave the state (he’s wants to tax all Californians for a set of years if they leave California). The number of businesses that closed, not just from the stupid minimum wage hike but also from the amount of crime in and around the businesses.

      The fact that you mentioned Witmer makes me cringe… a neoliberal socialist.

      Andy Beshear is the only Dem (to my knowledge) that appears to be moderate. But I have very limited knowledge of his views/goals/accomplishments. He doesn’t come off as a neoliberal or crazy leftisms… yet. He has a bias for Israel which more than likely means he’s corrupted by AIPAC.

      Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are also chitty. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul are two representatives with integrity. The others in the spotlight are chit tier.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        Your Overton Window has fell off the side of the building and broken on the pavement.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You don’t even know my political views. Here’s a tidbit, tho; I dislike democracy/mob rule. It is easily corruptible/manipulatable.

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You don’t even know my political views

            The fact you’re so low IQ you think clarifying you’re pro-authoritarian is even necessary… Straight perfection! You embody the weak, scared, conservative simp who yearns to be ruled by a king to feel safe and secure.

            • StaySquared@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              No. I think starting with an investigation of corruption of all politicians from local to state to federal, including government agencies should be the first step, however.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          lol… you got duped into giving away your money to a rail system that failed miserably.

          California’s HSR is perhaps the greatest infrastructure failure in the history of the country. And the reason it failed is because of a gross failure of state governance, one on such a grand scale that it is nothing short of a betrayal of Californians. The betrayal dates back to the project’s inception.

          dead.jpg

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I love “California disaster” arguments. I have some MAGA relatives that currently live in California, they decided to move and in 2022 in summer visited non-“marxist” states. And you know what? They ended up staying.

        I live in California for 25 years now and I love my state. The most opinionated about how shitty California is are people who never been here.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Brah… I can leave my A/C on 68F all day and night and not be pressured to raise it to lol… what was it again? 78F? It’s been a couple years since I’ve left California, I believe 78F is the recommendation during the hotter months. We don’t have to worry about rolling blackouts. We don’t have to pay for grocery bags. Our gas prices currently is a dollar less than Southern California, almost two dollars cheaper than gas in the Bay Area. Beautiful state, no doubt. Chitty politicians, however.

          • takeda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            So do I. Also the only time I had an outage in 25 years was due to equipment failure and, there also was a planned maintenance. It never took longer than a couple hours.

            Grocery bags cost like what? 50 cents? It encourages having reusable bags which are more practical anyway and don’t break as often.

            As for gas, this is a problem with location. On one side we have ocean on the other we have mountains. This causes pollution to be trapped.

            This is why Los Angeles was infamous for its smog in 70s and 80s. Catalysts and specifically refined oil helped being it back to healthy levels.

            Also I don’t get the obsession with the gas. If you look at prices the gas prices were static for nearly 15 years. It is ridiculous that this is still an argument to anything.