• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    No. We’re “un-fucked”.

    We cant win with Biden.

    We CAN win without him.

    Finally the dense mother fuckers who have been denying Biden’s inadequacy have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into reality.

    We’ll have a brokered convention (like all conventions before 1970’s), we’ll get “generic corporate democrat”, and they’ll be instantly polling in the low to mid 50’s and we’ll actually have a fucking chance.

    Biden has had no chance at winning this election at any point in his candidacy. Ever. Look at the polling. Look at the data. He’s never stood a chance and plenty of people here and elsewhere have been trying to get this through some extremely thick skulls that have basically been insisting that we need to run an un-electable candidate.

    Well the goose is cooked. The rat is out of the bag. Here comes the moose or whatever. He’s done. Adios Biden, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You did fine on some stuff but wow you fucked up on Gaza/Israel.

    Minutes after that debate Newsom was on MSNBC. We’re gonna get Newsom, or maybe Inslee; a way smarter choice would be Witmer or Andy Beshear.

    And guess what? Litterally ANY GENERIC CANDIDATE PUTS 10 POINTS BACK ON THE BOARD.

    Bam. Switch candidates and Democrats are instantaneously back in this race.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      This probably doesn’t work, and it’s probably not as good idea as anyone hopes (genuinely or not). It might happen anyway, but no matter what, we’re coasting toward a second Trump presidency, just like all the Russian agitprops here wanted all along.

      If Biden is polling down 10 points or worse at the convention, they could drag someone else onto the stage, but my suspicion is that no one else outperforms him on short notice, even after his abysmal performance in the debate.

      A few reasons:

      1. Newsom probably doesn’t want it. If he calculates Trump wins either way (not unreasonable), he’s not going to want that loss on his record since he’s already gunning for 28. He would be the best chance at getting an up-and-comer who already has good name recognition and looks and sounds good.
      2. Harris. If Harris wants it, she has a lot of leverage to make it hard or outright impossible for the party to push anyone else out in front of her. She’s a poor candidate for a lot of reasons, but she’s also the most attached to Biden. That’s both good and bad for her. If they want to run anyone else, they have to have her playing ball too. Ask yourself, if you were Kamala Harris, would you give up your only conceivable chance at the Oval in favor of another non-Biden candidate? Remember, in any scenario the odds are good Trump wins anyway.
      3. The truth may be that the party would rather just let Trump win. That sounds unthinkable, but this isn’t a secret cabal of idealists we’re talking about: it’s a bunch of self-interested rich people who want to put themselves in power. Getting them to do anything for the public good is difficult under the best circumstances. They could easily decide–rightly–that Biden is still their best shot at beating Trump. That was the call in 2020, and it paid off. Don’t forget that many of these same names being batted around now were active in the party four years ago. Newsom loses to Trump, and he’s largely seen as the best alternative. If you’re running the party and looking at those odds, you should run Biden if you actually want the best chance at winning. You might decide it’s just a lost cause and start planning for a four year long nightmare.
    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Good luck with Project 2025, because that’s what third party voters are voting for.

      We need to get rid of FPTP voting before a 2 party system can be derailed.

    • classic@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Not only switch candidates, but have Biden have the humility to back that person. Do it in the name of Democracy, you know: this election is too important and I realize we need a stronger candidate than I can be. That would sell well, and that’s what’s needed for better or worse: a good narrative

    • concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      LOL. A lot of flowery language there but not much substance. The Dems can’t switch now. Trump can instantly snatch on to that and attack whoever replaces Biden as an inferior desperate backup. Trump will say you Democrats have no idea what they’re doing and they can’t even stand behind their incumbent. This isn’t only about 2024 but also about the midterms. Who would vote for a party that backstabs their incumbent?

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yeah your just wrong.

        You obviously don’t know the rules for the DNC or how primary’s work, or have any kind of meaningful political acumen. You are your archetypes have been spouting this plainly wrong “political wisdom” both here and across cable news for months, years even. And reality has now bucked your claims.

        Bidens not the nominee. He lost that last night. And it’s a good thing. He’s losing dramatically to Trump right now.

        • tacosplease@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Such confidence in statements that will be proven wrong in a matter of days. LOL. You’ll forget these comments by then though.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I mean I’m taking bets.

            I’ll take 20:1 if you feel so generous as to give me those odds.

            I’ll lay down $20: Biden isn’t the nominee; and a second $20: Biden is does not win the Presidential election.

            If I’m wrong on the nominee, you get $20. If I’m wrong on them winning the presidency, another $20.

            If I’m right on the nominee, you pay me $400. If I’m right on them not winning the Presidency (for any reason), that’s another $400 you owe me.

            Bet? Or coward that doesn’t really believe what they believe when they are held accountable?

            If you don’t like those odds, feel free to offer odds you prefer and I’ll consider them.

            • tacosplease@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              How would we enforce the bet?

              Why 20:1 and not 1:1?

              Or even 1:20 if you’re so confident?

              Believe in yourself. Take the 1:20 bet.

              That’ll show me.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                20:1 specifically?

                https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

                That’s just the odds of Biden (or Trump for that matter) keeling over for literally any reason whatsoever based on the social security actuarial table. So if I can get 20:1, I should be break even betting against any octogenarian.

                There is a little bit better than a 1 in 15 chance, that for any 81 year old, they’ll die that year. So I hedged it to 1:20 as insurance, because I figured I’m really only betting on the first 9 months of the year. If I can get 1:20, that’s break even odds (actually slightly in my favor). Also, figure the presidency, campaigning; that shit aint a walk in the park. Probably more likely still to die in office than a standard octogenarian.

                I’ll give you 10:1 if you bet at least 50 bucks. I lose, you make $50; I win, I make $500. Hows that sound?

                Edit: As to how to enforce it, we can make a community and pin it there. ITs similar to what we used to do in a bar I frequented where we would bet pints (very similarly) on whatever was happening. There was a cork-board and bets would get pinned to it. And I trust you.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Your party (Democrat) is peppered with bad elements for the U.S. (Marxist, Socialist, Communist etc…). You mentioned a staunch communist, Newsom. Look at the disaster he made California into. The droves of companies and citizens leaving or have left California. The silly penalty he plans to implement for Californian residents who leave the state (he’s wants to tax all Californians for a set of years if they leave California). The number of businesses that closed, not just from the stupid minimum wage hike but also from the amount of crime in and around the businesses.

      The fact that you mentioned Witmer makes me cringe… a neoliberal socialist.

      Andy Beshear is the only Dem (to my knowledge) that appears to be moderate. But I have very limited knowledge of his views/goals/accomplishments. He doesn’t come off as a neoliberal or crazy leftisms… yet. He has a bias for Israel which more than likely means he’s corrupted by AIPAC.

      Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are also chitty. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul are two representatives with integrity. The others in the spotlight are chit tier.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          lol… you got duped into giving away your money to a rail system that failed miserably.

          California’s HSR is perhaps the greatest infrastructure failure in the history of the country. And the reason it failed is because of a gross failure of state governance, one on such a grand scale that it is nothing short of a betrayal of Californians. The betrayal dates back to the project’s inception.

          dead.jpg

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I love “California disaster” arguments. I have some MAGA relatives that currently live in California, they decided to move and in 2022 in summer visited non-“marxist” states. And you know what? They ended up staying.

        I live in California for 25 years now and I love my state. The most opinionated about how shitty California is are people who never been here.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Brah… I can leave my A/C on 68F all day and night and not be pressured to raise it to lol… what was it again? 78F? It’s been a couple years since I’ve left California, I believe 78F is the recommendation during the hotter months. We don’t have to worry about rolling blackouts. We don’t have to pay for grocery bags. Our gas prices currently is a dollar less than Southern California, almost two dollars cheaper than gas in the Bay Area. Beautiful state, no doubt. Chitty politicians, however.

          • takeda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            So do I. Also the only time I had an outage in 25 years was due to equipment failure and, there also was a planned maintenance. It never took longer than a couple hours.

            Grocery bags cost like what? 50 cents? It encourages having reusable bags which are more practical anyway and don’t break as often.

            As for gas, this is a problem with location. On one side we have ocean on the other we have mountains. This causes pollution to be trapped.

            This is why Los Angeles was infamous for its smog in 70s and 80s. Catalysts and specifically refined oil helped being it back to healthy levels.

            Also I don’t get the obsession with the gas. If you look at prices the gas prices were static for nearly 15 years. It is ridiculous that this is still an argument to anything.