• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ll say it to I’m blue in the face:

    Either party can guarantee victory by running literally anyone except Biden or trump.

    *Obviously not Hillary tho

    If Biden steps down, trump is toast if he stays.

    If trump steps down, there goes Biden’s entire campaign.

        • Stern@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They’d vote for Trump. We both know he wouldn’t stop running. Vote splits, dems win.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The pro-trump crazies aren’t the majority of the Republican party anymore.

        One of them literally just shot him a couple days ago in case you haven’t heard…

        • qprimed@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The pro-trump crazies aren’t the majority of the Republican party anymore.

          this is an underappreciated truth, but they quite clearly control the party. the dems need to give a reason for a solid majority of people to get off their asses and vote - apparently the threat of a literal fucking fascist takeover isnt quite enough.

          “I’m not trump!” is typical dem fantasy BS at this point. the maga crazies taste blood and are about to frenzy feed.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            this is an underappreciated truth, but they quite clearly control the party

            Moderate Dems don’t represent the Dem party either. But they control it.

            Both parties are controlled by the most rightwing factions, even tho most of the voters don’t like it.

            So we end up with most people voting against someone and not for anyone.

            That’s how we end up with 2/3s if the country not being happy if either of the two main parties win.

    • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why are you so certain that people would instantly vote for a new candidate more than the incumbent president? I have only seen polls saying the exact opposite.

      Regardless, time is ticking out. If a new candidate is gonna have time to build any sort of support or momentum, they need to get started yesterday and hit the ground running, the election is just getting closer.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        I have only seen polls saying the exact opposite

        An incumbent with what? A 34% approval rating?

        Biden isn’t a normal incumbent he’s literally a historically unpopular incumbent…

        And for months now polls have been showing a smaller gap between almost anyone else and trump.

        Like, do you not understand this is Biden with the campaign and DNC behind him versus people who can’t even say they’re thinking about running yet?

        You don’t think that would give them even a 5% boost?

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve seen polling that says that Michelle Obama wins by like 20 points, but I’m not stupid enough to believe that polling.

        There’s so much “not Trump” feeling in this country, but running a doddering octogenarian against him decreases those people willing to vote for “not Trump”. I’m absolutely voting for the Dem candidate, but I have some very real concerns about it.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s four months to go, that’s a long time to campaign. We’ve gotten used to these super campaigns but countries routinely hold them inside a couple months.

        • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          While the US campaign cycle is more extended than other countries’, even then the people who are going to be the main candidate for their respective parties (party leaders for example) are usually known well in advance and have managed to build up a reputation with their constituents before they even start campaigning. In this situation, you’d have to start way further back.

          I’m not saying it’s the wrong way to go, but everyone should be aware that changing candidate to someone completely new this close to the election absolutely won’t be a cakewalk.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            We have plenty of party leaders. We’re not starting with unknowns. The people we’re talking about are 90 percent of the way there.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hillary with Joe as VP, then in 2028 they’ll say it has to be Hillary again because for some reason no one under 70 has enough experience…

        I just like reminding myself that it can always be worse.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Naw, let’s really monkey paw this, Hillary/Schumer, with 3 more sham primaries. Although I’m not sure there would be a party that long if they kept going at that.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I know Michelle Obama doesn’t want to run, but like, please Michelle? Would you think about it? Things are getting pretty desperate here. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/03/michelle-obama-would-beat-trump/74289680007/

      If you really don’t want to do it, you could just win handily and then resign the first day and hand it off to someone else.

      I’m also surprised at how much worse some Biden alternates do in the polling given people’s reported desire for a switch, but maybe in time they’d have a higher support ceiling than Biden as people get more familiar with them.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        What a lot of news doesn’t report is the Undecided/Don’t Know category grows in lockstep with the drop in existing support for these other names. Trump’s support stays locked on at ~40-44 percent. So what’s really happening is a name brand gap. Some people just don’t know these other candidates and that’s easily solvable with four months and the DNC’s entire war chest.

        • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That could certainly be the case, I was trying to get at that with the second part of the comment. I’ll link the poll below directly for people where that can be seen easier. I wish we had some more people who already could poll better though. I was also hoping that Trump’s support might drop some with some of the other choices though, with some moving to the not sure category when a different democrat was proposed. Unfortunately it was looking like the “not sure” people are mostly coming from the previously Biden category, with Trump staying locked in at 40 like he is with Biden, or even higher for some of them. Michelle Obama was the only to get that to drop, and only to 39%.

          The “wouldn’t vote category” also dropped by a percent or 2 for some of them, so a few voters at least might be pulled of the sideline with a new candidate if they can manage to keep all the Biden voters. It was pretty impressive for Michelle Obama again, lowering from 8% to 4% not voting for the poll-takers in the case of Michelle Obama. She seems to pull her extra support over Biden from the current “won’t vote” and third party voters. Some of the other potentials also peeled off a percent or two from the third party voters too into the not sure category. These are the people that really need to be convinced if we’re going to beat Trump, and some of them at least seem to at least think about it when a new democrat is proposed.

          https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Then name a name.

      Who has that kind of charisma and name recognition, with no baggage, that they can storm in like the Koolaid man and take this election?

      No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. You have been shitting on Biden every thread, even non-Biden related posts, for this entire election year and have never offered an alternative.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You’d have to be blind not to see the news articles dropping names for the past few weeks.

        Whitmer

        Newsom

        Shapiro

        Walz

        Buttigieg

        Generic Democrat

        Even Harris polls better than Biden

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

          Whitmer, Shaprio, Walz, Buttigieg all don’t have the nationwide name recognition needed to hit the ground running with so little time before elections.

          Newsom only has name recognition because the Right has been demonizing him for years because they recognized him as a threat. We’d just have a repeat of Hillary.

          I’m not saying that these wouldn’t make decent candidates in a normal Primary time frame. But it would spell disaster to pivot to any of these candidates this late in the race.

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

            Four months is not “so little time”. And I agree that Shapiro and Walz have branding issues, but 4 months, the entire news media and DNC war chest would be enough to solve that. Newsom doesn’t have nearly the baggage Hillary had either. Hillary had baggage going back to 1992. Newsom has baggage from ~5 years ago? At that point there’s no one qualified to run, not even Biden.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s short enough time that a new nominee would literally be disqualified from the ballot in some states.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                The only state that requires certification before the convention is Ohio. A state we aren’t counting on and have little to no chance to win unless we suddenly run Reagan 2.0.

                There’s 49 other states that would still be in play, including all of the normal blue states and swing states.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Ohio even passed a special exception to extend the deadline to after the convention, though it’s unclear from the news I read whether there might be some risk of it being overturned by the court if Democrats needed it.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Oh I don’t think anyone is really depending on Ohio to keep its word on that. But there’s definitely a cursed timeline where Harris is the nominee out of the convention, Ohio withdraws their promise, and Democrats get close enough with a write in campaign that it’s plausible she would have taken Ohio. Cue more political violence.

                    At any rate I’m sure that has no chance of happening in our timeline, none whatsoever. Definitely not.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                This is a lie. It’s been a lie, and you should know better by now rather than repeating it.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Nope, it’s a lie. The date to appear on the Ohio ballot is still in the future. A new candidate could appear on it without issue.

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m entirely serious. The Republicans can rally around a criminal billionaire and still expect to take the white house, so why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian? I trust the guy that coined the term “enshittification” a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

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

              If you’re “entirely serious” in the literal sense, just to be super clear the answer to “why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian?” is that a Canadian is disqualified from the office of the President in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn’t think to prohibit megalomaniac felons. That’s apparently on us. :(

              • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                The writers of the 14th Amendment did, but for some reason they figured the president didnt need to be called out specifically in the final draft; probably figured it was obvious the president is an officer of the state. But well, we know how scotus took that

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The sad thing is, I do think you’re serious, and it speaks to the overarching theme of REALLY REALLY STUPID voters this election, on both sides.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                Then maybe it’s time for you to admit that there’s nothing Democratic about elections in this country and to start treating them with the contempt that they deserve.

                Elections don’t exist to pick leaders, that’s a mere side effect of their real purpose: the reification of the implied consent of the governed.

            • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I trust the guy that coined the term “enshittification” a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

              Cool so he has your vote. Who else? As expected the people who want Biden to bail at the 11th hour have no actionable plan.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                The problem with demanding “actionable plans” is that the only person who could enact them is the DNC chairperson, who currently reports to the incumbent.

    • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      blue in the face

      I’m now imagining a debate where the republican candidate is red faced screaming and the democrat candidate is turning blue due to screaming and forgetting to breathe.