News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?
Yea, pretty much every election up here in Canada.
I'm amazed that Americans think four months "is like literally no time".
It'd take an ad spend but the DNC could name recognition pretty much anyone at this point.
You don't elect a chief executive in Canada the way we do in the U.S.
You can't compare a parliamentary election to our constitutional presidential republic's elections.
The elections are short, but we've known the candidates a long time. De Dluca was elected leader shortly before the election and no one knew who he was and he totally tanked.
*see, I even got his name wrong. Del Duca.
Name recognition with Doug was incredibly high. To this day, who the hell is Del Duca anyway?
*4 weeks, bud
The convention is in 4 weeks. Mail-in-ballots get sent out at the end of September.
There's a lot of misinformation being shared due to the lack of proper context. Yes, the election is in November but it's not that simple
Honestly, if we ever think something is simple, we should pretty much assume we don't know wtf we're talking about
can you show an election where somebody in the polling position of biden has come back to win it?
non-us election cycles are shorter than the time that's left i don't think it's an impossible hurdle
I don't have to show evidence for a claim I did not make.
You, however, made this claim: it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.
Can you back it up with evidence or not?
i think it's weird that you think you're allowed to infer claims from my position but that i'm not allowed to infer claims from yours
I didn't infer anything. You made a direct claim that you aren't backing up. I quoted it. I have made no claims.
you didn't quote anything?
please could you quote the exact words you believe i used to express "it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like."?
thank you
that was the original statement Flying Squid was replying to before you joined in the thread, Squid just didn't seem to notice that you're not the same commenter.
Fuck off, sea lion.
i feel like i'm taking crazy pills
somebody tells me they've quoted my words, and they haven't, and i ask them to clarify, and i'm sealioning?
no, they're just full of shit
what are you talking about?
I think there may be some confusion on Flying Squid's part about who they're questioning. I believe (and hopefully, I'm reading this correctly) Flying Squid is looking for clarification from Bostonbananarama and you just happened to chime in with a related point? This Crowdstrike B.S. got e'erybody fucked up on no-change Friday.
the commenter you're replying to now isn't the one who made that claim, and for some reason they aren't speaking up to clarify that about themselves.
Maybe they flushed and went back to work. Or sleep. Or are back country camping.
😅
Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.
2016
To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.
How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?
but they could be anyone, even worse candidate!
That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.
In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.
If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.
So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?