294
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 173 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Obviously because he's a weak candidate (and has been from the very beginning) in what might well be the highest stakes presidential race in US history.

The debate didn't suddenly create some notion of his weakness as a candidate - long before the debate, his prospects were already shaky at best, and the Dem establishment had already had to resort to basically trying to guilt trip people into voting for him.

All the debate did as far as any of that goes is drive home the point that people have been trying to make from the beginning - that he is and always has been a weak and uninspiring candidate at best.

And I'd say that rather obviously, if anyone's repeating the mistakes of 2016, it's the Dem establishment.

And on a bit of a side note - in response to the author's smugly self-congratulatory view that the voters are mindless automatons who just blindly do as the media tells them, I would just like to offer up a hearty, "fuck you."

[-] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I should also add that his ABC interview on Friday only intensified my concerns. To me, all it really communicated is that he actually IS so wrapped up in his own ego and hubris that he doesn’t actually get that this is an existential election, and that the consequences for failure are well and truly catastrophic. Like, there’s a good chance we won’t have functional democratic processes anymore if he looses. But he thinks that’s fine because “he will have given it his all”, ignoring the fact that “his all” is shuffling around, trying to compromise with fascists, and bringing a deck of cards to the gunfight that American politics have devolved into these days.

Really, it’s an evolution of the concerns I had in the 2020 elections, which have kind of proven out to be completely true: that despite some clear domestic policy successes, he’s more or less out of touch with the fact that he’s playing with an absurdly outdated rule book, and does not seem to understand that the rules have fundamentally changed. He doesn’t get that a lot of his old bipartisan negotiating tactics are straight up self-defeating these days.

I am genuinely and deeply worried at this point that his refusal to see past his own personal situation in all of this is going to lead to the conclusion of the American experiment in its current incarnation, and replace it with something far, far darker.

Edit: if you’re downvoting this, I am actually genuinely curious as to which parts of this you disagree with, or think are wrongheaded.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

I'm glad you mentioned his interview increased your concern. I thought it was just me. I'll vote for whoever is the Democrat on the ballot - but I'm not the person the campaign should be worried about. They have to put someone on the ballot who can win (which, as damning as it is to America broadly, is probably a good-looking, smooth-talking white guy who will look better on stage than Trump).

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Really, it’s an evolution of the concerns I had in the 2020 elections, which have kind of proven out to be completely true: that despite some clear domestic policy successes, he’s more or less out of touch with the fact that he’s playing with an absurdly outdated rule book, and does not seem to understand that the rules have fundamentally changed.

He and the DNC and the Democrat establishment as a whole.

The voters made it clear in 2020 that they didn't really want him all that much, and arguably the only reason he got the nomination is because the Democrat establishment transparently engineered it by getting all the candidates other than Sanders to all drop out and endorse Biden essentially simultaneously. That gave the establishment the opportunity to push through Biden's nomination in spite of his glaring weakness as a candidate. They could've had a populist to rival Trump, and one that's notably sane rather than a delusional narcissist and compulsive liar with the emotional maturity of a spoiled five-year-old, but instead they doggedly stuck to the same playbook that in the past brought us such drab losers as Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, and brought us another drab loser who only barely managed to not lose.

And now here we are, four years down the line, with a drab loser incumbent up against the greatest threat American democracy has ever faced.

The rules clearly changed in 2016. The RNC and the Republican establishment changed to accomodate them (or at least to provide a colorable appearance of doing so). The DNC and the Democrat establishment did not. And now we're reaping what they sowed.

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
294 points (86.6% liked)

politics

18138 readers
3684 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS