Hillary Clinton ran against a sexual predator. She should have mopped the floor with him. She didn't.
Any election against Trump will be close. The problem isn't age. The problem is Trump supporters.
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
142 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22634 readers
3547 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
The problem is that Republicans don't vote for a candidate they vote for a party. The Republicans could run Hitler's reanimated corpse as their candidate and as long as it had that R next to its name it would get their vote. Democrats on the other hand are much more likely to not vote for or not even show up to vote at all for a candidate they don't particularly like. It's why good Democrat candidates always beat Republican candidates of any kind, but bad candidates usually lose. Democrats massively outnumber Republicans, but the Democrat party nearly always runs the worst possible candidate. If Republicans win any election it's not because they had a good candidate, it's always because Democrats ran a bad one.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
So, under the leadership of Clinton, Pelosi, and Schumer, they chose to make the swing voters the ones they appeal to most. Maybe Bernie’s positive populism would have matched up better against Trump’s negative populism than Clinton’s outdated neoliberalism. But leadership and the DNC would rather lose an election and keep control than win but lose their place atop the party hierarchy.
My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.
I think it's simultaneously less conspiratorial and more nefarious than that: the establishment wing of the party likes power and power means control over campaign funding, so they pander to large corporate donors by suppressing anti-corporate populists.
That, and how much the rural vote is overly counted.
No, the problem is democrats refusing to run a real populist against a fake populist like Trump. Instead we get the same establishment garbage, which is exactly what the Trump campaign is geared towards defeating. Schiff is also incorrect - Kamala would be just as bad in this regard.
If Dems run a real populist who is a champion of the people, not the corporations, Trump would be exposed and the whole MAGA movement would fall apart at the seams.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Kamala Harris could win "overwhelmingly"
Citation needed.
She is hated more than Biden. I doubt this would play out as intended.
Polls have her doing better than Biden. You could do worse than running a woman when abortion is on the ballot (and by worse I mean, for example, a catholic who's visibly queasy about actually supporting bodily autonomy). She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote, and she's responsible for a lot of Biden's support among black Americans.
She's only polling better because that's what the media wants you to believe. Polls are meaningless and are only valuable to those pushing the polls.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yes, but that was before everyone saw a sundowning POTUS on that debate stage.
Attitudes have changed amongst the DNC establishment, at least according to the reporting.
Anecdotally, I've heard similar feelings echoed in far left/socialist circles.
I will say I haven't seen any new polling that take recent events into account. I assume those figures exist, I just haven't seen you come across my feeds yet.
load more comments
(1 replies)
..its..
Its in the article?
The reason given in the article is "Because I, Adam Schiff, think so" - all the hard data we have (competive polls, opinion polls, historical references) gives a pretty bleak outlook for a Harris presidency.
Without even looking at polls, and knowing how much racism and misogyny there is, as well as the outcome of 2016, I have my doubts about Kamala as a viable candidate.
There was some misogyny involved in Clinton's loss, but she had a special kind of misogyny attached to her that was built up over years. The fallout from the affair Bill had really kind of splashed back on Clinton, she wasn't just hated by misogynist men, she illicited a ton of internalized misogyny from conservative women as well, in part because of the way she presented herself after it came to light.
Harris doesn't have any of that baggage. At this point I think Trump has hoovered up the vast majority of misogynists and bigots already. Most people at this point likely don't care.
I mean.
Schiff said the thing. So there is your citation for the quote.
He's not asking for the citation for the quote. He's asking for the citation of the veracity of the assertion. We know Adam Schiff said the thing. What matters is the justification for saying the thing.
With no data to justify it (and plenty available showing it's not true), this is just further evidence Democratic leadership is stuck in the mindset of political battles from 30 years ago. If Trump were running in the political reality of the 90s with his current background and record, even current Biden would mop the floor with him. But we're not in the age of the party of Gingrich. This is the party of Trump, and facts and record don't matter to Trump voters and Republicans in general. Welcome to 21st century American politics, Mr. Schiff.
I guess he can email Schiff's office?
I think that's a fair miscommunication. I was asking for a data driven citation while you were providing a quote citation. I agree that Adam Schiff almost certainly said that, but my question is why he thinks that (or, as I'd suspect, why he's lying).
load more comments
(1 replies)
Lol, you got caught in a lie and are doubling down on it.
Its an article about what a politician said. The politician said that thing. I think you and your buddies lack reading comprehension.
That's a lie though, the data we have literally says the opposite. Which is why all the party power players are in favor of Biden shuffling off.
Remember after Jan 6 when Republicans overwhelmingly were shocked and disgusted eith trump and publicly decried his actions, and then in a few weeks they basically sucked his dick? Why do democrats publicly want to show dissatisfaction and disdain amongst their own party and they stick to it so the media gets stuck in this endless loop while we jsut had a political debate where the Republicans top nominee (which was publicly trashed by his party for Jan 6th) said the absolute worst will happen if the country elects him?
So much in fighting on the dem side with a guckin dictator in waiting for the Republicans. Get your shit together dems
So what you're advocating is figuratively sucking the candidates dick no matter what terrible thing he does (aka blind worship), like republicans do?
And that would make you different than them, how exactly?
Not really. Let's say people don't vote at all because they don't like this guy or that guy. Who benefits? The Republicans at this stage. Let's say a real third party surfaces. Hypothetically let's say AOC. Who benefits? Republicans because now a democratic vote is split among 2 candidates. Brain worm Kennedy won't split the republican vote to benefit the democrats because there's no cult of worm following for him.
I hate to say to vote for the lesser of two evils. Both sides have done wrong. But personally I'll not vote for an outright dictator-to-be in trump. And that is for this moment in time mind you. These are supposedly the best candidate these 2 parties offer and they both suck. But again personally I feel we can work something out with democrats while Republicans have a single agenda, theirs.
A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris... so...
Yeah really, if you like Harris, just vote for Biden and wait a couple of months.
Ironic coming from someone who just pimped his Republican challenger to blow off 2 other Democratic candidates, same dangerous idiotic move a certain presidential candidate tried some years ago.
Does DNC have any other strategies?
Heh. Thats a good point.
DNC: IF YOU CHALLENGE BIDEN IN THE PRIMARY YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!! NO DEBATES!! WE'LL SHUT YOU THE FUCK DOWN MARYANNE WILLIAMSON!!!
Also DNC: Did I do a fucky-wuckey? Oops.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He doesn't seem to want to pass the torch.
A Jul 2 poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos had Kamala Harris losing to Donald Trump by 1 point (42% to 43%) if she were to replace President Biden. The only Democrat who would hypothetically beat Trump according to the poll is Michelle Obama, who would have an 11-point advantage over the former president. However, the former First Lady has expressed several times over the years that she will not be running for president.
It's interesting, this farce and display of pride and ego. All Biden has to do is one of two things:
-
Go all- in. Set up another debate. Make sure he's top of his game. Go full Dark Brandon and absolutely wipe the floor. Then apologize AFTER doing this for his previous bad performance. Do this right, reaaally sell it, and he'll come out the other side in a better position. Do it wrong and it'll hurt his campaign even more. Trump doesn't even have to show up. The point is giving Biden the same opportunity to step up. Toss in some late night talk shows with hard questions. When you have trust to gain back you have to work twice as hard.
-
Be a leader and talk to us all. Put forth a nominee to take his place. Work with them on the campaign trail and truly ask all of us to step up for our Nation, as one.
AND YET we appear to be getting some silly asinine middle-of-the-road choice.
I like Biden for many of the policies and steps he and his administration have taken these last four years. They've done good and sometimes even great things, and made mistakes and done bad things too. Over all, he's been far from the worst President. Now though is the time to step aside as a leader, or rise into that position and take control.
He can't "fix this" the same way he hid it.
The catch 22 he is in, is that he has to very publicly demonstrate to us that the debate was a fluke. The problem, is performances like his Stephanopoulos interview simply affirm the conclusion that he's a deeply out of touch grumpy old man who can keep track of his own thoughts for the duration of a conversation. His: recovery' interview, I mean it wasn't as bad that the debate, but it did still dig the hole deeper.
So if you can go 'show' how this isn't a problem because you make the problem worse, you have to concede.
Want to "win overwhelmingly"? Stop saying you're not as bad as the Toupee. Duh. There's at least 300 million people in the US that fit that statement. Don't tell us to vote against the Other Guy, tell us why we should vote for you, specifically. You had some trivial wins in the past year? Advertise them. You have some plans for working class Americans that you'll pretend never existed the second the election is over? Promise them!
If you want us to vote for a specific person, tell us why that person is worth voting for. If the strategy remains "I'm not as bad as the Other Guy", you might as well just put a blank line next to the D on the ballot.
Same thing goes for all you centrist supporters who automatically assume everyone who wants a better candidate than Biden is secretly a Russian troll who will be voting for the Toupee.