You're viewing a single thread.
Not saying you shouldn't do the right thing when the choice is limited, but how about the DNC stops putting its finger on the scale for unpopular establishment candidates?
It's clear that the 'safe' choice can still lose, so why not go for the person the base actually likes instead of another centrist wet napkin who appeals to no one?
Because the DNC is conservative. They don't want a left leaning candidate. That's not who they intend to represent. They represent money. That is all. They will let the Republicans pull things to the extreme right and then they can hang out right of center and now there is no other choice.
Because the base likes centrist wet napkins. I'm not sure who you're picturing as the base democratic voter block but they're not exactly a bunch of radicals.
The DNC is bought by big money donors just like the RNC is. Those big money donors would rather see a fascist in charge than a socialist.
History repeats itself once again.
Reminds me of when the army tried to simplify uniforms by measuring a bunch of soldiers for data and making an average size medium, large, and small that ended up not fitting anyone well at at all.
People always trying to push Biden bad. This is the candidate that won. He is popular. This is what the base likes.
Everytime the Dems move left they lose. Happened to Al Gore, he tried to move left after hopefully the population warmed up with Bill Clinton. Bam lost the election. Thanks 3rd party voters. Hillary tried just a tiny little bit with the map room to fight climate change, after hopefully the population warmed up with Obama. Bam lost the election. Thanks protest no-voters!
Imagine what the landscape would be if they won. If you want the Dems to move left, you have to give them victories. Because when they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
Happened to Al Gore, he tried to move left after hopefully the population warmed up with Bill Clinton.
Gore didn't lose. had a proper recount been done (including the overvotes,) Gore probably would have won. SCOTUS intervened and stopped recount of the undervotes and Gore never pushed for recounts of the overvotes (which should have been recounted anyhow by florida state law.)
Oh so we had President Gore? We can talk all day about recounts, but we did not have President Gore. Thanks 3rd party voters!
Gore ran to the left? The guy who picked Lieberman as his VP?
Gore the big climate change candidate. Yeah that's left.
He became the big climate change guy after he lost.
I’d also point out that he only looks like a big climate change guy now. Back in 2000, the right wing hadn’t gone all-in on climate denialism yet. You could easily find Reagan and Bush people who didn’t think it was controversial.
They need the conservative voters in swing states. Do the Dems in swing states get excited about leftists or progressives? Like in 2016 Hillary had more votes in AZ, NV, FL, OH. I wish Bernie had gotten to the general and I think the EC is a cancer. But I don't think going by popular vote is a viable strategy given that we have to deal with that reality.
They need swing voters and yeah that's what I'm saying. When they lose, they go to the center to find the swing voters.
So how do you get them to go left? By giving them victories. Because when they lose they go to the center.
That’s a great conversation to have the next time its relevant.
When will that be?
We couldn't primary Biden in 2024 if we wanted to. Even the unaligned votes that should be a symbol of "hey, you're not pleasing your base" were ignored. In 2028, they'll surely push K-hole as the safe choice because even if Trump dies, you know they'll put his head in a jar to run him again and clearly his only natural enemy is bland centre-right politics.
Biden's appeal wasn't that he was charismatic or brilliant or super-competent.. it was that he was a reasonably sincere, respectable human, and he's proceeded to squander that by failing to handle Gaza gracefully.
Don't tell me he can't do anything. Just run the same playbook we subjected Venezuela or Cuba to, and that would get Bibi's attention.
You act like this is some big Injustice or surprise. Let me ask you a question. When has any party ever primaried an incumbent candidate of their party. Who were the 2019 republican primary candidates? Are the Democrats doing anything to you. Or are you a victim of your misunderstanding. This isn't a defense of Democrats mind you. It's just unusual that they're always held to different/unrealistic expectations.
Also I think it's important to point out. One of the only people to even remotely seriously push to primary Joe Biden was Dean Phillips. You know the Trump appeaser. Who recently called for New York's Governor to Pardon Trump. Sure sad I didn't get to vote for that man LOL. The fact is everyone knew there would not be and didn't necessarily need to be a primary this year. I hope everyone is ready for 28 though. I'm really hoping for some younger blood now that the boomers are dying out. Honestly I'd like to see Ocasio Cortez make an effort. She's young and might not make it. But she's got plenty of time to work at it and hone her skills.
It’s just unusual that they’re always held to different/unrealistic expectations.
Perhaps they're victims of their branding/positioning.
If a Trump, or even a Romney, says "we can wash our hands of a little genocide in the middle east for political gameplay/economic convenience/religious theories", that's pretty much within what people expect of them. The GOP has had a vaguely evil air since at least Nixon, if not McCarthy.
The Democrats, however, try to present themselves as trying to be on the right side of history. While this is no doubt a combination of cynical "this locks in some demographics" and "social justice is still cheaper than actual economic reform", it means people expect a little higher standards. The bar is unbelievably low here, and he's still tripping over it.
Okay, so Biden abandons Israel tomorrow. Does the genocide stop? Nope because it was always Congress that authorized and controlled the spending and weapons shipment. Mike Johnson and the Republicans will gleefully fund the genocide in Palestine. And on top of that now we've lost all diplomatic influence with israel. They are now all in on the genocide. Worse Biden who's actually made many overtures trying to bring peace actually working with the system and not viewing things through a childish black and white lens. No longer has any pull to negotiate any peace treaties or ceasefires.
Whether or not abandoning Israel completely would slow the genocide anytime soon. It would ultimately increase the killing. Many countries in the region. Would readily attack Israel without the United States to defend it. So the genocide would switch from innocent Palestinians to innocent israelis. I'm not sure how that's a better thing. It's just exchanging alike for alike.
You seem to think this is very simple however. And I'd be interested to get your thoughts on this. Please explain and simple thoughts how you feel the Democrats should handle this. And then explain why them following your actions would have the outcome you claim it will.
I figure we get two things out of it:
- Regaining the moral high ground; we are no longer complicit. This is, to a big degree, playing for a domestic audience, and I think it's what a lot of protesters are after. Yes, Congress may ultimately cut the cheques, but I'm pretty sure the administration can find ways to tie up delivery of support in red tape.
- Israeli impunity has always been backstopped by the assumption the US would never turn on them. If other countries turn up their nose, it doesn't have the same meaning. Losing American support would be a huge shock to their political system.
Alternatively, we could go to the point and publically declare what everyone knows-- Netanyahu is fanning the war because once it's over, his administration is defunct, and his legal problems resume. We could singularly demonize HIM as a warmonger-- personal sanctions, supporting his prosecution for war crimes, or classic Cold War style encouragement of regime change.
Yes, whatever we do, we piss off Israel, but if we don't take off the kid gloves now, then when? If they finally admit to nuclear weapons by dropping one?
Biden was the incumbent. When he chose to run in 2024, the decision was made. You don't just throw away that advantage. If the DNC funded an opponent, it would only divide the base.
Case an point - just look around at Lemmy users. There are still a ton of users clinging onto the DNC boycott after the controversy of Hillary getting the 2016 nomination.
Now is not the time to divide further. Now is the time to shut the fascists down before we lose the ability to run any opposition, charismatic or not, in 2028.
You mean now? The convention hasn't happened yet.
He's not a safe choice. Its the illusion of safety that extends from an incorrect worldview of how voting manifests.
Voters exist as discrete psychodemographic blocs and move in schools/ flocks. They don't exist on a continuum.
This is from an analysis I'm doing right now:
This is a simulation I ran on the likely (November) distribution of approvals we should expect from Biden given his current approval, and how we've seen approval ratings change between in the five month period between now and November.
This is the results of the simulation when we look at the probability of a sample coming from the above distribution coming from the distribution of approval ratings for a president that won a second term.
Basically, this is one way of calculating Biden's probability of winning the election given the historical relationships between approval ratings, how they change in time, and their relationship to electoral outcomes.
Currently, Biden is rolling with an approximately 6.22% chance of winning.
Biden is not currently a viable candidate.
What does Bush Jr have to do with this? More seriously, Are you going to publish this somewhere?
So Bush Jr. had the lowest approval rating for a president that won a second term. He ended his second term with one of the lowest approval rating of any president of all time (just a short and curly ahead of Nixon).
Some detail:
Including George W. Bush
Approval Shifts: Mean Shift: 1.91% Standard Deviation: 10.53% Winning Candidates' Approval Ratings: Mean Approval Rating: 50.73% Standard Deviation: 11.14%Excluding George W. Bush
Approval Shifts: Mean Shift: 3.60% Standard Deviation: 9.40% Winning Candidates' Approval Ratings: Mean Approval Rating: 56.35% Standard Deviation: 4.31%Notice how the standard deviation associated with the winning candidate tightens up significantly with out Bush?
I do publish the results of these analyses, here, on lemmy. However, I just have a day job that has prevented me from doing "the rest" of this analysis. This is only one part of a larger analysis I have planned.
Here are the two distributions:
Permanently Deleted
Wheres the bias? Show me or shut the fuck up cus I'm out here trying to see what the actual data say and you just flappin' your gums.
The analysis is very very very fucking simple:
We're using the Gallup approval data because its the only consistent data longitudinal enough to do this kind of analysis.
Calculate the mean and standard deviation of approval ratings for presidents who won a second term (the average of the 30 days right before the election).
Calculate the mean and standard deviation in approval deltas from the approval at election time (november) relative to now (june).
Take the presidents current polling, take a random sample from the delta distribution, and add the two numbers together. Calculate the probability that this number was sampled from a "winning re-election distribution". Write that probability down.
Do this many times (I did it 10k times).
You and every one who is in denial about Biden being an un-electable, piece of shit, you-are-causing-trump-to-win-by-running-biden, choice.
Yall are so full of shit its coming out of your ears.
Permanently Deleted
You don't know up from down child.
Permanently Deleted