462
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
462 points (96.4% liked)
politics
19237 readers
2076 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When people talk about that Biden is going to lose and blame it on him, I really wonder if they understand what our system is and what the stakes are. We only lose if people decide not to vote for Biden. There are things that a good candidate can do to excite their voters and motivate people, but at the end of the day, anyone can see the options that lay before them and choose regardless of what the campaign does.
You can wish that the campaign/candidate were better so that it made the job of motivating people easier. But if you are worried about the consequences of Trump winning this election, then you should be trying to motivate people to vote Biden. The article is to remind people that while Biden fared poorly at the debate, Trump was actually worse and is always worse. It seems to me that this is an honest point that underscores the need to vote Biden in this election, despite any of his shortcomings.
We are driving down a road and a semi is coming straight at us at 100 mph. We can either veer off the road and damage or even total our car on whatever is there, or we can say “I shouldn’t have to veer off the road, there should be a shoulder”, or even “I didn’t even want to take this route in the first place but my wife insisted” as the truck hits us head on. There’s no good option, but there’s a clear survival option.
To me it makes more sense to blame the weather than any person when it comes to voting patterns. But it would also make more sense to blame the Democratic party as a system than a single politician for a presidential loss.
Doesn’t it make the most sense to blame our election system that makes people feel like they don’t have enough choice or the ability to express their actual preference in an election?
The Democratic Party is a product of this flawed system. You can make things a bit better, but at the end of the day, you have to have a party that is a coalition of disparate groups that choose a single person who has to win it all. So, a candidate that super excites and energizes one faction of the coalition is likely to be very unappealing to other factions. And most of the time you’re going to end up with someone who nobody is actually excited for. It would be great if Democrats had a preferential/ranked voting system for determining that one candidate, which allowed for many candidates, and for those candidates to stay in the race without the risk of cannibalizing others (e.g. having both Warren and Bernie wouldn’t detract from either one). However, even this isn’t determined centrally by the party, as each state gets to do voting the way they want to. So, it’s not an easy problem to solve.