this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024

164 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22612 readers

4034 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

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

164

Get Used to It: Biden Isn’t Going Anywhere (www.politico.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

152 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Democrats have all the spontaneity of the House of Windsor. Or, closer to home, they’re closer to what Republicans once were, a party that falls in line not in love.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's ridiculous that the DNC doesn't understand this shit depresses turnout.

People want to choose who to vote for, voting for someone you dislike because the other candidate is worse doesn't get enough voters to comfortably win

Biden is going to fuck around and lose, and the "moderates" are going to blame it on progressives (even tho they always show up) and say the 2028 candidate has to be even more rightwing

Or, Biden squeaks out a victory, and the party says that also proves the party needs to go more rightwing

No matter what happens, both parties keep drifting right.

And that reality is why we spend 100s of millions every election, and still barely crack 2/3s turnout.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Any democracy based on FPTP voting will trend rightward. It's a fundamental flaw in the voting system from a game theory perspective. The dynamics of a two party system will always support a good cop/bad cop dominant strategy (think of spoiler candidates, and how we always are faced with the prospect of voting against a bad candidate rather than for a preferable one). Good candidates exist, but our preferences are not a priority inherent to the design of the system.

We would do better with approval voting or Concorcet, but the only way to change the voting system is to get buy-in from the parties to whom it would be certainly fatal.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except American democracy has existed for longer than this issue...

FDR won in a two party system, sure, the parties instituted term limits to get rid of him, but he won in FPTP.

But the reason both parties drift right is because of the neoliberal movement that's only been around 30 years.

It's been working out terribly, but party leadership doesn't care because there's more money in being rightwing

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dark money out of politics would alleviate a lot of the issues we've been seeing. The voting system is still the game we have to play if we want democracy, and badly designed games are only fun for the winners. An approval vote would get us more broad consensus in leadership, and a return to government based on a shared vision of society, rather than a Congress perpetually locked in a darkly comedic reimagining of the French National Assembly.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (5 children)

But republicans will always be against that, and so will neoliberals.

Doesn't mean we can't do it, but we need to wrest control of the Dem party from neoliberals, and primary a bunch of incumbent Dems first.

It's like climate change, it's not a quick fix, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying immediately, just that we're not going to see noticeable results for a long time.

Which is why I feel like I'm insane no one else is losing their shit that NH got their primary taken away for a law only state republicans could have changed. The DNC told NH Dems if they didn't violate state law, they didn't get primary delegates. And then followed thru.

It's not a coincidence NH has been voting progressive in primaries over the party pick.

If they did it this year, what's stopping them from doing it in 2028?

Without a primary, voters have zero say. And legally the DNC can do whatever they want in a primary, even outright ignoring the result.

If we lose the Dem party, we're all fucked.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

It’s not a coincidence NH has been voting progressive in primaries over the party pick.

The party wanted to punish New Hampshire and reward South Carolina because the former went for Sanders and the latter proved pivotal for Biden in 2020.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No matter what happens, both parties keep drifting right.

Go back 20 years and the Democrats had a significant anti-abortion faction, formally opposed gay marriage, even acknowledging trans people was taboo, the core of John Kerry's health care plan was some minor government subsidies for employer-based plans, any acknowledgment of police racism was absolutely not done, Kerry voted for the Iraq war with no regrets, and I could go on.

To say that the Democratic party is more right-wing today doesn't hold up to a second of actual scrutiny.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Kerry voted for the Iraq war with no regrets,

Same as Biden and Clinton

The populace has gotten more progressive on a few individual issues and forced Democratic lawmakers to update their talking points a bit, but actual policy on things like the roll of the federal government in regulating and subsidizing businesses, campaign finance regulations, civil liberties and surveillance, and granting asylum to migrants has all gotten markedly more regressive

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Meanwhile, back in consensual reality, Biden is the most Progressive president we've had in my lifetime in terms of policy actually passed into law.

p.s. I'm never going to block you. It's far too important to show the rest of the class why you're wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe you're just really really young?

Obama was a lot more progressive than Biden, and he left office in 2016?

Obama's healthcare reform wasn't perfect, but what has Biden done that you think is more progressive?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Maybe I'm almost 50 & you're just not aware of what Biden has actually accomplished.

What Progressive laws did Obama get passed in his TWO terms? I'll start: AHCA & Cash for Clunkers.

What else?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, the first article is about things he said he would do...

The second is this:

But that picture has started to change. The House passed a significant piece of legislation Friday and sent it to Biden to sign into law.

I thought if it took a law, Biden had no power? That's the excuse for him not doing most of his campaign promises.

But here's a law, and youre giving Biden sole credit for it?

We're not republicans, we're not that welcoming of hypocrisy

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh my god. Anyone still refusing what this administration has achieved despite having a republican supermajority in the house is living under a rock or has an alternate agenda.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Oh, ok. You're just not aware of how our system of government works.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I'm a lot older than you and have better news sources than the average MSM consuming crowd. From my gleanings Biden is a lot more progressive than I expected him to be but one wouldn't even suspect it from the corporate news. He has managed to get student loan forgiveness, champion support of unions and pass infrastructure reform - hardly right wing agendas. It just that Biden's successes do not get a lot of press.
When I hear complaints about Biden I recall this quote: "I look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief they have known something of what has been passing in the world around them" - Harry Truman

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Or, Biden squeaks out a victory, and the party says that also proves the party needs to go more rightwing

No matter what happens, both parties keep drifting right

Shit, this is so fucking true and so fucking depressing. Thanks, truly, for being real.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago (13 children)

I would totally be open to someone other than Biden running... If the DNC (or any party) had actually started promoting and positioning anyone good 2-3 years ago.

It's too late now. Biden is the guy.

And all the people on the Internet I see whining about how they don't like the choices available: if you actually want to do anything productive instead of just bitching you need to do the work in advance. Get involved with political organizations, campaigns, etc.

Even looking further ahead to he 2028 elections (assuming the US is still having elections)... Who is the DNC planning on running? Harris is cop who doesn't excite anyone. AOC is probably too polarizing to get moderate support, and is probably move valuable in Congress right now. Newsome maybe? I hate to throw out celebrities, but it's happened enough that it's possible and John Stewart seems like he might just go for it. Heck, even he is 62 right now, so he'd be 66 if he ran in 2028, and 67 by inauguration day.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Paraphrased

Trump Biden Biden Trump Biden Biden Biden Trump

Trump will not be able to run successful if Biden runs and any faults of Biden will be because of Trump

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (13 children)

The time for a challenger to have stepped up to Biden was before the primaries. The only ones who did lost abysmally. You and many like you could have spent your time and effort recruiting and canvassing for someone else. But you didn't. Instead, you just complain about Biden and have the temerity to say "any faults of Biden will be because of Trump" when you didn't do a thing to try to get anyone to primary him.

You want to bitch and moan, not help.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Given that the system is heavily skewed toward incumbency, your comment is a bit disingenuous. We both know that the DNC intended Biden to run. He had the advantage of thier coffers, thier PR machine, and the support of their leadership. Implying that the playing field was at all fair ignores reality.

I do agree, though, that Biden's many faults are his own. His most recent failure, support for ethnic cleansing and denial of aid to refugees, should have made him unelectable by the party that claims to be pro-human rights... but here we are, with him as the best of two terrible candidates.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It's not disingenuous at all. If you don't want Biden to run, work to primary him. That's how it works. The fact that almost no candidates even tried to primary him shows that people like the person I responded to didn't want to actually do the hard work it takes. They just waited until the inevitable and then complained. So I am going to point that out when they bitch about Biden like this. If they had at least tried, there was at least a chance Biden wouldn't be the nominee. They didn't try.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, any possible challengers to Biden had to know that anybody they pissed off by doing that would remember in 2026, 2028, etc., and that they should just "wait their turn" instead

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

To be fair, anyone that wants to run in a primary against the incumbent is already going to receive less due to the "never run against them" unwritten rule. We've been primed to see it as a failing strategy, and anyone that tries gets shouted down because "now is not the time."

I'll readily admit that some great things have been done this presidency, and Biden needs to be more vocal about that. However, his age being part of the conversation means that they're too afraid to actually have him talk about it (it seems like).

I dunno. I haven't felt less excited to vote in my life, and that's due to the pressure all around.

"Vote or it's fascism" is a great motivator to get out, but when it turns into a yearly thing it no longer it no longer feels like duty.

And yes, voting to stop fascism is a good thing. What I'm getting at is that apathy is going to win until we get someone that we can actually be excited for. Another Neo-liberal win isn't the victory that gives me high hopes for the future.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I read this as saying if you can't build an electoral apparatus within the Democrat party capable of challenging the party leaders, your opinion doesn't matter to the democrats

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love this "it's not worth trying" attitude as an excuse to complain.

Weirdly, I haven't heard anyone who was pushing for Dean Phillips or Marianne Williamson make that claim or that complaint. Maybe because they actually did the work.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

>I love this “it’s not worth trying” attitude as an excuse to complain.

that's not what I said. it's a strawman.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, I know your 'if I don't literally say something, any inference you make is false' game. You played it yesterday too.

And, of course, you're allowed to interpret what I say however you like.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's not a game. it's just intellectual honesty

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I see. The idea that you can interpret my comment any way you like but I are not allowed to interpret any of your comments except 100% literally is intellectual honesty to you.