2mo ago

Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump

www.theguardian.com Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump

President also regrets picking Merrick Garland for attorney general, as he was slow to prosecute Trump for January 6

Joe Biden regrets having pulled out of this year’s presidential race and believes he would have defeated Donald Trump in last month’s election – despite negative poll indications, White House sources have said.

The US president has reportedly also said he made a mistake in choosing Merrick Garland as attorney general – reflecting that Garland, a former US appeals court judge, was slow to prosecute Donald Trump for his role in the 6 January 2021 insurrection while presiding over a justice department that aggressively prosecuted Biden’s son Hunter.

With just more than three weeks of his single-term presidency remaining, Biden’s reported rueful reflections are revealed in a Washington Post profile that contains the clearest signs yet that he thinks he erred in withdrawing his candidacy in July after a woeful debate performance against his rival for the White House, Trump, the previous month.

politics @lemmy.world

IndustryStandard @lemmy.world

2mo ago

Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election

110 77

chapotraphouse @hexbear.net

Spongebobsquarejuche [none/use name] @hexbear.net

2mo ago

Biden reportedly regrets ending re-election campaign and says he’d have defeated Trump

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2024/dec/28/joe-biden-regrets-dropping-out-re-election

123 48

You're viewing a single thread.

209 comments

No, all the problems left of fascists have with Kamala were even moreso with him. The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven't done in a long time. They needed to get people voting for a candidate and not against the other guy which has been the strategy of both parties for ages, but doesn't work well when one side has people voting for him and your side actually wanted to vote against you, but were never given an alternate.
- sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
  
  Bernie is one example of not running a fair primary, but not specifically what I was referencing. I was referencing the 2024 Democratic Primary specifically, and then mentioning that very few in the past have been fair to candidates. Not just because of the way the party treats the candidates publicly, but because of the way funding works and the direct control the leaders of the party have over that funding and how blackballing works if any candidate doesn't follow the party line. Which would be fine if there were allowed to be more than two viable, active parties at once. But the electoral college, among other things, makes that almost impossible, thus why Bernie had to run as a Democrat in the first place when he doesn't usually belong to the party.
  
  sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
  
  You're quoting the last half of a sentence. "The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven't done in a long time." A prepositional phrase is an addition/side comment to a current statement. Thus, the 2024 primary was the primary focus of my comment.
  But, again, to address the prepositional phrase portion, yes, none of the primaries in my lifetime have been truly fair.
  As for the two party system, the original comment is referencing the electoral college which is the primary cause of the two party system as I mentioned in the original comment. The reason it's relevant here is the same reason duopolies are unfair in economic contexts. When hundreds of millions of people have only 2 choices, those 2 rarely will care to appease the majority because they don't have to in order to keep the customers/constituents. They just have to be the less hated for more people than the other one.
  So, funding. Where does most presidential funding come from if they don't have direct wealthy donors? The SuperPACs are controlled by the same group of people who lead the DNC. And most primary elections are determined by funding because it's so expensive just to get your name out there, your message heard, and to get on the ballots. So funding is very relevant to the fairness of the primaries.
  
  Bernie Sanders’s problem in 2016 and 2020 was not funding. He had cash. He outraised and outspent Clinton consistently every month in the 2015/2016 primary for instance. That is not a satisfactory answer because it doesn’t reflect reality. Your entire answer is predicated on access to funding, which he had. So unless you have something else to discuss here then I guess it wasn’t that unfair. Which honestly is kind of ridiculous of me to write but you’re the one saying that’s the important metic here.
  SuperPACS in 2024 aren’t relevant because we didn’t have a proper primary. Which I totally agree was a problem. But that’s not the source of my scrutiny here anyway so it’s moot.
  
  I don't know why you're so focused on Bernie when I only side discussed decades of primaries, but OK if that's the only primary that matters in all of history, then let's discuss it.
  Clinton took a bunch of money she promised to give a significant amount of to state and local Democratic parties and then a bunch of what she didn't take went to the DNC instead and less than half a percent of the $80+ million went to the state and local candidates. And this was fine with the fund raising agreement technically because the DNC wrote it that way, but definitely unethical considering the donations were made with the assumption that it would help the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, not just Hillary and the DNC. Bernie didn't take part because of the mismanagement of the DNC and the agreement language that allowed for such things.
  Additionally, Warren, Biden, and several other candidates were prevented from running through pressure from the DNC leadership. If they had been allowed to run, it was said, it would have split the vote too much away from Hillary. Again, it's easier to control the narratives with a two sided competition so they could get who they wanted.
  These are just two examples of problems with the way the primary was conducted. Unfortunately, because a lot of the financials and other business of political parties is considered proprietary, much more like a corporation than something representing the people who it purports to represent, there is less evidence of a lot of the other issues. Fortunately, Hillary's campaign was more forthcoming with financial data than the DNC, so we do have some data at least.
  I'm not a Hillary hater and while I think she did some things wrong, and while I admit I'm biased against her from her taking a bunch of money to drop the healthcare reform during her husband's term that could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps a certain CEO assassin's severe pain, it's the responsibility of the party to make the primary elections fair, not the candidates, beyond basic ethical standards at least.
  
  He was the primary challenger for the last 2 primaries lmfao you’re seriously asking why I’m focused on him!?
  You keep going on all these big tangents grinding whatever axe you fancy yet refuse to get back to the core discussion: what was unfair about the previous primaries? You said it was money but that’s demonstrably false. What is it?
  
  Bernie was one of many, not the most important.
  The tangents are what you're asking for because you keep focusing on one prepositional phrase in a whole paragraph. The whole point of the post was the issues of the electoral college and how it causes a necessary two party system if it ever hopes to actually elect without resorting to the contingent election system which then gives the election to the house, where more representatives per person are given to low density areas, much like the electoral college votes are distributed.
  I already answered how the primaries are unfair. Funding agreements are corrupt as proven by the data from Hillary's campaign. The party doesn't allow true primaries to occur in years with an incumbent president. And in other years, candidates that might be competitive are limited to one, or at most, two strong candidates one of which is more strongly supported by the party, despite there being many others who want to run (much like how Warren, Biden, and Hickenlooper in 2016). Keeping the others out actually benefited both Sanders and Clinton, but due to the power of money and the fact that those in the party had already decided on Clinton and actually had no intention or even an obligation to allow anyone else to win, it made it much easier to sabotage just Bernie rather than having to sabotage many candidates.
  The fact that the parties are allowed to be biased for a specific candidate and have no real obligation to hold primaries, much less listen to them, and the fact that there can only be two parties, means there is no true democracy (representative or otherwise) by design. Votes are rarely for something, but instead voting against something and thus selecting the "lesser evil" that is selected by a small minority. This is the point of the original post. The primaries not being fair is just a side note, and not even part of the constitution, nor is it illegal for the primaries to be biased, so it's just obfuscation of the real issue. The fact that the electoral college creates a necessary two candidate system. That doesn't mean we have to have political parties, but we do, and those are corrupt, but outside of the purview of the constitution. No matter what system is put in place, it will always be no more than two options.
  
  Once again I am against the two party system. I have just been seeking clarity on what you mean by “the primaries have not been fair“ and now I finally have some semblance of an answer from you so thank you. You were very speaking broadly it seems.
  
  I'm having problems rationalizing what you're trying to get to. You admit "the DNC stacked the deck" but you don't think that effected his outcome? You ran on the campaigns but have completely forgotten about the Nevada scandals involving unions and the caucus or what happened in SC when the DNC pressured high profile representatives to back Biden instead of Bernie (of which historically Biden has been horrible for minority communities). These are just off the top of my head, articles and references if you need them and I'll make sure to find you some more to help with the analysis.
  Seems like you're splitting hairs trying to form some type of narrative. Democratic primaries have nothing to do with the two-party system? You'd have to completely wretch out decades of political knowledge from my head to even consider that nothing is connected. If there's a real, viable point you're trying to make besides "nuh uh", would love to be exposed to it.
  
  Stacked the deck on messaging and support but that doesn’t impact votes directly. Even trying to hurt his funding didn’t work: he out raised and outspent Clinton. So I’m curious what they mean “they haven’t held a fair primary in a long time.” If it’s “the party leans in to their favorites“ then I don’t really see the revelation here because that has been the case of all parties forever. Do you think the libertarian party has a fair primary? The problem is this discussion is almost always imply there was some sort of actual thumb on the scale or potentially even cheating of some sort, invariably super delegates come up even though superdelegates have never shifted the course of the primary for the Democrats ever (and the rules were changed after people freaked out about it in 2016).
  All of this is to say “the Democrats have not held a fair primary in a long time“ is a pretty big statement that implies a lot of things, and for some reason I’m getting all kinds of responses that don’t even relate to the primary, definitely not a straight answer. I’ve got people talking about how don’t like first past the post, the two party system, etc. but no assessment of that initial claim I raised my eyebrow at. It feels like it shouldn’t be this difficult to zero in on.
  Once again I would like somebody to explain to me what meant by “they have not held a fair primary in a long time”? It’s too broad and sinister sounding currently to just be “they have a favorite and message in their favor.”
  
  This is all sounding a little delusional and honestly blind. Several factors have been pointed out to you, you're aware of some of it and supposedly followed along. The very statement of "they have a favorite and message in their favor" is a direct conflict to having a "fair primary".
  
  sadfasfsadfd

209 comments