Im sure theres lots of historical examples to draw from, but the US is an ever changing landscape thats chabging at an accelerating rate. Most of the presidents lived in a time before mass...
Im sure theres lots of historical examples to draw from, but the US is an ever changing landscape thats chabging at an accelerating rate. Most of the presidents lived in a time before mass telecommunications, before social media made politics a 100% of the time constant debate.
The Democratic fissures that opened in 1968 widened in 1972. Instead of leaving, the left took over this time, driving out moderates and conservatives. The Democratic diaspora went to Richard Nixon by the millions.
Does anyone think thats gonna happen here? That droves of democrats will flock to Trump by the millions because their beloved Joe Biden is no longer on the ticket?
Because if you dont, then maybe whatever other conclusions you may be drawing from historical examples might also not hold.
I think there is a valid argument to be made that Joe Biden should remain the nominee because no one else has distinguished themselves as someone that could unify the party, but personally I think all the hand wringing about how we cant possibly pick a new candidate just 4 MONTHS away from an election is silly.
So she actually is out there a lot, the media just doesn’t cover it because it’s mostly boring stuff. Also her main focus has been on immigration and border issues which, understandably, are...
Can you legit name one thing Kamala has done the last 4 years? She's been one of the most invisible VP's since Dan Quayle.
So she actually is out there a lot, the media just doesn’t cover it because it’s mostly boring stuff.
Also her main focus has been on immigration and border issues which, understandably, are things a Democrat will tend to want to shy away from publicizing.
But I think I mentioned in another comment previously that I have a lot of trust in Harris to have both the desire and the prosecutorial skills to shove Biden out if it seems to be 25th Amendment time.
I know it might sound crazy, but I just have this wild idea that getting promoted to the democratic nominee in an unprecedented manner might boost someone's name recognition. I think the news...
I know it might sound crazy, but I just have this wild idea that getting promoted to the democratic nominee in an unprecedented manner might boost someone's name recognition. I think the news would cover that quite a bit. And if that doesn't do the trick, maybe 100 million dollars that donors are currently withholding might buy some ads.
I would bet you $50 that the way the news will cover it would be to depict it as a coronation by party elites to foist an unknown, unvetted mystery candidate on the public. They won’t say anything...
I think the news would cover that quite a bit.
I would bet you $50 that the way the news will cover it would be to depict it as a coronation by party elites to foist an unknown, unvetted mystery candidate on the public. They won’t say anything overt, but all the discussion will be like “Who is she?” “Will the American people vote for someone they never heard of?” “What about [cringe thing she said in 2010?]” “She’s so unknown and mysterious, people might opt for the former President they already know.”
There is no universe where newspapers are interested in actually informing the public about things in a straightforward or forthright way. They are fully invested in both-sidesing every issue.
Right wing media 100% would frame it that way, as they are currently pushing the narrative that Biden must stay in the race. We don't even know what the process would look like, but however it...
Right wing media 100% would frame it that way, as they are currently pushing the narrative that Biden must stay in the race.
We don't even know what the process would look like, but however it might happen, the replacement would most likely be Kamala Harris. If not, it would be Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom. You're making this sound like they would nominate a Democrat version of Sarah Palin.
And even if that somehow was to be the case, I don't see how that is worse than the current narrative for the Biden campaign. Quick reminder: 37% approval rating, 85% say he is too old for a second term, party members and major news outlets across the country are calling for him to step down, donors are threatening to withhold funds, and every time he opens his mouth supporters hold their breath.
No the right wing media will go completely feral at the sight of an assertive Black woman. What I’m characterizing is how the centrist media will frame it. I can’t even predict where the right...
No the right wing media will go completely feral at the sight of an assertive Black woman. What I’m characterizing is how the centrist media will frame it. I can’t even predict where the right will go, but it’ll probably involve a hard R.
In fact I think that’s where Harris has the most upside potential. Similar to Obama, the right can’t seem to resist unmasking as completely deranged freaks when they have to attack a Black person.
This only applies if you follow politics as a hobby. If you don’t social media is mostly sketches, weird cooking videos, and people shilling supplements. I don’t know how to get through to people...
before social media made politics a 100% of the time constant debate.
This only applies if you follow politics as a hobby. If you don’t social media is mostly sketches, weird cooking videos, and people shilling supplements. I don’t know how to get through to people that the undecided voter at this stage is barely paying attention and, in the voting booth, mostly just pulls the lever as a referendum on how well they think their life is going personally. If the underlying economics are good being the recognized incumbent is very handy.
Yep. Social media for me, after slashing and burning most of what I followed (and cutting Reddit out of my life entirely last year) is just J-Pop, anime and video games, and YouTube is either...
Yep. Social media for me, after slashing and burning most of what I followed (and cutting Reddit out of my life entirely last year) is just J-Pop, anime and video games, and YouTube is either music or videos on synthesizers and music production. If someone were to send me a video even slightly related to politics, I watch it in incognito mode. If a political video pops up in recommendations, I immediately flag it as not-interested to avoid that changing.
Yet, I probably still knew about Project 2025 before it was even being talked about on Tildes. PACs never stop emailing you no matter how hard you try to unsubscribe, and I do skim news aggregators, so it's basically impossible to not be more informed than the average person...just cutting out excessive Internet users' commentary is a major improvement for mental health and changes nothing of value.
Sure, content wise. But I dont think that means those people are insulated from politics. I try my best to not be involved or informed anymore but I still end up hearing information about it all...
Sure, content wise. But I dont think that means those people are insulated from politics. I try my best to not be involved or informed anymore but I still end up hearing information about it all the time. Advertisements, comments in youtube where people randomly inject comments about the people they dont like, the news, etc.
You dont really have to follow any the drama surrounding Trump to understand his whole deal just from cultural osmosis. Its kind of part of his campaigning strategy to dominate the media and get his name out there just by being so comically out of pocket that it becomes a part of mass entertainment. So even nonpolitical people still hear about it from comedians and podcasts and other casual entertainment sources.
Yeah the actual events have an impact but they’re attenuated by the mechanisms you’re talking about so it’s usually not as direct as people directly reacting to what they see. This is also why I...
Yeah the actual events have an impact but they’re attenuated by the mechanisms you’re talking about so it’s usually not as direct as people directly reacting to what they see. This is also why I maintain that the collective Dem freak out over Biden is what’s actually doing the damage rather than Biden himself. If people would just stop freaking out it’d be fine.
I can agree with that. I think whether the party ultimately sticks with Biden or not would be fine either way, but in the short term its definitely not doing them any favors to have people keep...
I can agree with that. I think whether the party ultimately sticks with Biden or not would be fine either way, but in the short term its definitely not doing them any favors to have people keep vascillating on it.
I'm gonna be honest but maybe US history ain't the best place to look to right now. We are getting into uncharted territory with this election. Me and almost everyone around me are of the...
I'm gonna be honest but maybe US history ain't the best place to look to right now.
We are getting into uncharted territory with this election. Me and almost everyone around me are of the consensus that anything can happen.
Going into an election with an incumbent with disapproval ratings greater than 55% is also historically a losing proposition. There are no good options right now. But when you’re losing you want...
Going into an election with an incumbent with disapproval ratings greater than 55% is also historically a losing proposition.
There are no good options right now. But when you’re losing you want an option with more uncertainty.
If you take Nate Silver’s model that currently gives Biden about a 25% to win and say you swap in Harris and she has a 40% chance to win. That’s still a better option even if you’re still more likely than not to lose.
The 25% chance comes almost entirely from the potential for a systematic polling error. It’s not something I would bet the farm (American democracy) on
The 25% chance comes almost entirely from the potential for a systematic polling error.
It’s not something I would bet the farm (American democracy) on
The sports analogy fails because the performance of a political candidate is process dependent. You can’t just swap one out like you swap out a QB because the political figure’s appeal isn’t based...
The sports analogy fails because the performance of a political candidate is process dependent. You can’t just swap one out like you swap out a QB because the political figure’s appeal isn’t based entirely on the skill sets of the politician/athlete themselves. Politicians are basically figureheads for an agglomeration of factional interests and a network of professionals that have put their weight behind supporting them. A politicians’ performance is formed through a political process that binds all that stuff together and creates the image that goes out and advocates for them. Without a structured process that confers legitimacy and rolls these groups up in a way that works productively you don’t have a useful candidate, you just have a person who makes speeches.
I don’t think this argument is all that compelling for Harris in particular. Anyone who is voting for Biden is already voting for Harris to take over in the (likely) case that he cannot finish out...
I don’t think this argument is all that compelling for Harris in particular. Anyone who is voting for Biden is already voting for Harris to take over in the (likely) case that he cannot finish out another 4.5 years of the job.
She’s not some random swing state governor swapped in at the last moment.
Im sure theres lots of historical examples to draw from, but the US is an ever changing landscape thats chabging at an accelerating rate. Most of the presidents lived in a time before mass telecommunications, before social media made politics a 100% of the time constant debate.
Does anyone think thats gonna happen here? That droves of democrats will flock to Trump by the millions because their beloved Joe Biden is no longer on the ticket?
Because if you dont, then maybe whatever other conclusions you may be drawing from historical examples might also not hold.
I think there is a valid argument to be made that Joe Biden should remain the nominee because no one else has distinguished themselves as someone that could unify the party, but personally I think all the hand wringing about how we cant possibly pick a new candidate just 4 MONTHS away from an election is silly.
So she actually is out there a lot, the media just doesn’t cover it because it’s mostly boring stuff.
Also her main focus has been on immigration and border issues which, understandably, are things a Democrat will tend to want to shy away from publicizing.
But I think I mentioned in another comment previously that I have a lot of trust in Harris to have both the desire and the prosecutorial skills to shove Biden out if it seems to be 25th Amendment time.
You know what, youre probably right. I dont really have any idea what Im talking about, I was just theowing out an opinion.
I know it might sound crazy, but I just have this wild idea that getting promoted to the democratic nominee in an unprecedented manner might boost someone's name recognition. I think the news would cover that quite a bit. And if that doesn't do the trick, maybe 100 million dollars that donors are currently withholding might buy some ads.
I would bet you $50 that the way the news will cover it would be to depict it as a coronation by party elites to foist an unknown, unvetted mystery candidate on the public. They won’t say anything overt, but all the discussion will be like “Who is she?” “Will the American people vote for someone they never heard of?” “What about [cringe thing she said in 2010?]” “She’s so unknown and mysterious, people might opt for the former President they already know.”
There is no universe where newspapers are interested in actually informing the public about things in a straightforward or forthright way. They are fully invested in both-sidesing every issue.
Right wing media 100% would frame it that way, as they are currently pushing the narrative that Biden must stay in the race.
We don't even know what the process would look like, but however it might happen, the replacement would most likely be Kamala Harris. If not, it would be Gretchen Whitmer or Gavin Newsom. You're making this sound like they would nominate a Democrat version of Sarah Palin.
And even if that somehow was to be the case, I don't see how that is worse than the current narrative for the Biden campaign. Quick reminder: 37% approval rating, 85% say he is too old for a second term, party members and major news outlets across the country are calling for him to step down, donors are threatening to withhold funds, and every time he opens his mouth supporters hold their breath.
No the right wing media will go completely feral at the sight of an assertive Black woman. What I’m characterizing is how the centrist media will frame it. I can’t even predict where the right will go, but it’ll probably involve a hard R.
In fact I think that’s where Harris has the most upside potential. Similar to Obama, the right can’t seem to resist unmasking as completely deranged freaks when they have to attack a Black person.
This only applies if you follow politics as a hobby. If you don’t social media is mostly sketches, weird cooking videos, and people shilling supplements. I don’t know how to get through to people that the undecided voter at this stage is barely paying attention and, in the voting booth, mostly just pulls the lever as a referendum on how well they think their life is going personally. If the underlying economics are good being the recognized incumbent is very handy.
Yep. Social media for me, after slashing and burning most of what I followed (and cutting Reddit out of my life entirely last year) is just J-Pop, anime and video games, and YouTube is either music or videos on synthesizers and music production. If someone were to send me a video even slightly related to politics, I watch it in incognito mode. If a political video pops up in recommendations, I immediately flag it as not-interested to avoid that changing.
Yet, I probably still knew about Project 2025 before it was even being talked about on Tildes. PACs never stop emailing you no matter how hard you try to unsubscribe, and I do skim news aggregators, so it's basically impossible to not be more informed than the average person...just cutting out excessive Internet users' commentary is a major improvement for mental health and changes nothing of value.
Sure, content wise. But I dont think that means those people are insulated from politics. I try my best to not be involved or informed anymore but I still end up hearing information about it all the time. Advertisements, comments in youtube where people randomly inject comments about the people they dont like, the news, etc.
You dont really have to follow any the drama surrounding Trump to understand his whole deal just from cultural osmosis. Its kind of part of his campaigning strategy to dominate the media and get his name out there just by being so comically out of pocket that it becomes a part of mass entertainment. So even nonpolitical people still hear about it from comedians and podcasts and other casual entertainment sources.
Yeah the actual events have an impact but they’re attenuated by the mechanisms you’re talking about so it’s usually not as direct as people directly reacting to what they see. This is also why I maintain that the collective Dem freak out over Biden is what’s actually doing the damage rather than Biden himself. If people would just stop freaking out it’d be fine.
I can agree with that. I think whether the party ultimately sticks with Biden or not would be fine either way, but in the short term its definitely not doing them any favors to have people keep vascillating on it.
I'm gonna be honest but maybe US history ain't the best place to look to right now.
We are getting into uncharted territory with this election. Me and almost everyone around me are of the consensus that anything can happen.
The way this statement aged gave me a chuckle..
Going into an election with an incumbent with disapproval ratings greater than 55% is also historically a losing proposition.
There are no good options right now. But when you’re losing you want an option with more uncertainty.
If you take Nate Silver’s model that currently gives Biden about a 25% to win and say you swap in Harris and she has a 40% chance to win. That’s still a better option even if you’re still more likely than not to lose.
Assuming Nate's model is prescient and the polling is accurate.
I wouldn't take either assumption for granted.
The 25% chance comes almost entirely from the potential for a systematic polling error.
It’s not something I would bet the farm (American democracy) on
The sports analogy fails because the performance of a political candidate is process dependent. You can’t just swap one out like you swap out a QB because the political figure’s appeal isn’t based entirely on the skill sets of the politician/athlete themselves. Politicians are basically figureheads for an agglomeration of factional interests and a network of professionals that have put their weight behind supporting them. A politicians’ performance is formed through a political process that binds all that stuff together and creates the image that goes out and advocates for them. Without a structured process that confers legitimacy and rolls these groups up in a way that works productively you don’t have a useful candidate, you just have a person who makes speeches.
I don’t think this argument is all that compelling for Harris in particular. Anyone who is voting for Biden is already voting for Harris to take over in the (likely) case that he cannot finish out another 4.5 years of the job.
She’s not some random swing state governor swapped in at the last moment.
Maybe but we can’t be confident. I think people are way too dismissive about the existence of crossover voters.