this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
153 points (92.3% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2412 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 154 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Also stupid: ignoring calls that you're too old, dropping out way too late for a primary and handing off to your VP who was not particularly popular last primary.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 71 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also putting a heritage foundation sympathizer as your AG.

Not accounting postal board members who would remove the scum that is DeJoy.

Letting Israel genocide Palestine without cutting off the weapon supply. While also dragging us into shit with Iran.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Biden did a lot of deeply frustrating and very wrongheaded things, but Garland for AG, imo, cleanly takes the cake. I genuinely cannot think of a more feckless, functionally useless, and societally harmful nomination that he made.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was vocally against it at the time, but too many dumbasses were way too into "poetic justice" to see how stupid making the compromise candidate your first choose was

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

When I called out the appointment it was just a Republican in Biden's cabinet who wouldn't go after Jan 6 rioters or Trump, I was told I was being a doomer and unrealistic.

I hate being right about horrid shit.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

"Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to fuck everything up" --Barrack Obama.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago (4 children)

She'd had done fine if she did three things:

  1. Continued the initial push of laying her foot into the collective asses of the MAGA collective. That first month or so was great and Dems needed that energy.

  2. Gone against Biden and condemned the situation in Gaza AND remind everyone that Ukraine is still going.

  3. Not listened to the idiot Dem "strategists" who seem so fucking convinced that courting modern Conservatives is a good idea.

Had she done these three things and even the shit communications of the Dems could not have stopped the word of mouth and internet celebrity status she would have had.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 18 points 1 week ago

Or, she could have courted conservatives by going after the health insurance industry. Democrats are still operating like it's the 1990s.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

She didn't though. Given the fact she never won a presidential primary it was unsurprising that she ran a poor campaign.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's the thing: She was doing fine initially. Not even when you measured her up against Biden, just in general. She came out verbally lashing Trump and challenging everything he and his cronies tried to do. She did exactly what I was hoping she'd do and lean on her experience in law and not tried to be charismatic.

What I suspect happened is she was pulled aside and told it wouldn't work. Chances are she was made to bend and rather than leverage her position she did bend. Or perhaps she was convinced to do so, I don't know. After Bernie in 2016 I don't trust the Dems at all when it comes to elections. Not in the sense of corrupt votes or whatever, in that they'd choose a losing candidate or choose to lose over having to admit they need to step aside and let the energy flow.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What I think you are trying to say is:

[–] habitualcynic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’ve thought about this quote a lot since the election lol. Timeless.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah, pretty much...

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Biden, a white man, only stepped down because his own numbers showed him losing terribly too. The dems have lost the plot and are not speaking to (both in person and as a platform) their base.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

A white man embracing Cuban and Cheney but running as a dem, supporting a genocide, and telling people worried about the economy that they're doing just fine would have lost too. Unless you're a racist yourself, dont confuse stupid with racism and sexism.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Maybe? The huge chunk of people who didn't vote for her were white middle class suburban men. There might have been a simple racial bias to factor in as well.

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

She lost traction with every single demographic except white college educated. Stop trying to make this solely about individual demographic differences. It clearly wasnt.

[–] itsonlygeorge@reddthat.com -1 points 1 week ago

That worked so well for Hillary Clinton. Let’s face it, we are not ready for a women president. We won’t even let them head committees in Congress!

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You know, almost feels intentional. Would not surprise me, for sure. I can totally imagine that jackass thinking better for him to hand the reigns to Trump than to some dirty socialist like Bernie.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Almost certainly. The Dems in power aren't worried about a second Trump administration. If anything, they're excited for it. What terrifies them is the idea of a third party, progressive candidate getting office.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

If Trump just wants to hurt more people that the Dems are, they would stay in office with security or leave the country.

Trump's victims of the lower class aren't able to have such luxury. No one cares but the victims.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Left wing populists threaten the oligarchs. Right wing populists don't. It's really that simple. The Democratic establishment straight up prefers Trump to Bernie.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

Trump is an idiot who looks good to run against. When Trump was gaining ground, donations went up. When Roe v. Wade was abolished, donations went up.

Why have a candidate who wants to help people and can defeat Trump when the money keeps pouring in so you can leave the country if he ever gets "too much".