this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
59 points (87.3% liked)

politics

19239 readers
2334 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
59
‘Of course’ Biden should have dropped out of race sooner, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy says (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

If Biden dropped out sooner, and we had a primary, and the candidate was someone from outside the administration who could say things that they would have done differently and had more history of passing progressive policy, maybe things would have been different. But who fucking knows. People would still have thought the candidate was constantly talking about trans people and pronouns even though they wouldn't have been, would have still wanted to punish the current people in power for inflation which could have extended to any other democratic candidate, and all the other issues the electorate punished the democrats for. Maybe, though, it would have helped democratic turnout at least.

Sadly we will never know and because some people decided to stay home and others decided to embrace fascism because of the economy, we get to deal with the ramifications.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

It is disinformation warfare. We can argue this and that should be done, but it is unlikely it would make much difference. Many people who voted for trump had believed Harris positions that were opposite from reality. People get their news from social media which is easily manipulated.

Ironically social media are no longer social, they are full of bots and AI generated content that is used to manipulate our views.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If you think that would have changed things, you are going to keep losing

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You bet your balls a real primary would have helped.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I doubt it. We are continue to underestimate information warfare. Look at Romania. A guy sympathetic to Russia who no one heard about few months ago won the first round.

The same techniques were used this election and previous one in US and Europe and we still ignoring it.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree that what they did is ridiculous. The macro story should be that the two major parties rig their primary processes in order to sideline potential challengers to the machine apparatus.

The takeaway is you have little to no ability to influence the national candidate selection unless you're a major player in an early primary/caucus state or you're a billionaire PAC donor.

Even if they had a "real" primary the DNC would've cooked it so Kamala (or whoever the DNC elites picked) got the nod. The Obamas, Clintons, Pelosi, Bloomberg etc. already made the decision at that point and what you or I wanted was never a factor.

[–] themoken@startrek.website 4 points 3 weeks ago

I agree that a primary probably still ends up with Kamala and would probably just be the illusion of choice. The DNC would close ranks around her in the name of Biden's legacy, just like they did for Biden back in 2020 when the vote was splitting in Bernie's favor, and in 2016 when it was obvious they just wanted to coronate Hillary and move on.

That said, even with a rigged primary, putting your candidate on the debate stage to address your constituents instead of skipping directly to fellating non-existent centrists in the general would have been good.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Which "that"? That Biden should've dropped out sooner or that the Dems need to embrace a populist message?

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

No shit.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just can’t let it go can they

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This shit is going in history books under the headings of either "The Background of the Second American Civil War" or "The Fall of the American Republic" so it's not going to stop until the climate completely collapses.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 2 points 3 weeks ago

Well, here’s hoping the earth kills us before we kill ourselves 🍻

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

K