234

Bernie Sanders predicts 'rough' campaign ahead but thinks Harris has 'very good chance to win' (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago

Regardless of her touted chances of winning, let's not repeat 2016.

Get out and fucking vote like your life, and the lives of everyone you care about, and probably the next 10-20 year stability of geopolitics, depends on you turning out to vote.

I wish I was exaggerating.

[+] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -47 points 3 months ago

I will vote like I did in 2016, for a 3rd party.

[-] cranakis@reddthat.com 31 points 3 months ago

Unhelpful person pledges further apathy. Got it.

Voting for brain worm 2024?

[-] Sciaphobia@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

He's on a .ml instance

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

It's amazing how quick the "I just want someone other than Biden" crowd turned to "I'm voting 3rd party" the second Biden was no longer the candidate. Almost like they just want the Democrats to lose...

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com -4 points 3 months ago

Don't mistake it for apathy. I didn't vote for either major party candidate in either of the last 2 presidential elections because I didn't like either of the options. I'm not going to be schoolmarmed by anybody on Lemmy for doing so, especially since many of the people participating in US politics discussions on Lemmy seem to be Canadians or Europeans who, just like Russian trolls, cannot vote in US elections.

If you want viable third party options leading towards reform, you have to act accordingly. In '92 Ross Perot won 20% of the popular vote despite only re-entering the race in October. In June of that year he was polling as the leader in the 3-way race, before questions about whether he would qualify for all states ballots. He could have won that election.

Since then, the two mega parties have done all they can to ensure no viable 3rd option ever emerges again. This year we were given a matchup of historically unpopular R, nominated pretty much by default through a party controlled process of primaries that couldn't be meaningfully influenced by primary voters...and on the D side we were given a historically unpopular D for whom the party scuttled all potential primary challengers, then at the last second they replaced him via their national process, subverting the entire point of having primaries, with a candidate who won zero votes in that initial process or the previous election cycles primary process.

That said, since as an individual I have no meaningful way of influencing or reforming either major party, and both continue to force candidates upon us I don't like, I will be voting for whoever I want. It is not even remotely similar to "apathy". Thanks.

[-] cranakis@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

I don't see how you tossing your vote away to a third party that will definitely lose, in any way creates a future with more than two major parties. It simply will never work. Your efforts would be better spent trying to reform either existing party from within. Maybe you're not apathetic but you are delusional.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

All Harris has to do to win, is lean into who she IS, and at every oppertunity post evidence that trump is wrong about who he says she is.

Add a big helping of policy talk, a dash of memeing, celebrity endorsements, and boom, she's in.

[-] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That and not have the electoral voters fuck her

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com -5 points 3 months ago

Her campaign doesn't even think this is true. They are essentially running a "basement" campaign. Zero events off prompter, speaking through surrogates, and trying to ride any potential DNC bump all the way through the election (or at least until early voting is underway in many states).

Harris is deeply off-putting to listen to when she speaks extemporaneously on virtually any issue. Therefore her campaign is banking on more or less hiding her, "freezing" the poll numbers approximately where they are now and avoiding big risks.

Literally the only inflection point that can change the race any further is the debate (or debates) if that happens.

[-] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

i think any campaign within spitting range of trump is going to be a rough campaign. it's inevitable.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for ABC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kamala-harris-win-popular-vote-millions-bernie-sanders/story?id=113126382

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024

234 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers

2309 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

• 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