Biden announced he's ending his bid for the presidency via X (formerly twitter).
Sources:
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1040 points (99.4% liked)
News
23622 readers
4128 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm hoping for a Kamala/AOC ticket.
Biden just endorsed Kamala, so that much is likely. The VP will probably be one from a shortlist of 5 or so governors/senators from swing states.
Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That's one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle...
The shortlist I've seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I'd call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too
I think you could add Pritzker to that list
This is why I'm really hoping they don't pick Shapiro. Having three democratic governors in a row is a fluke in PA and I don't think we'd avoid getting a Republican next.
That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.
Aka what Biden was to Obama
Yes more pandering from the DNC to the far right individuals who would never vote for a Democrat to begin with.
Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama's ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.
Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among "center-right" voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.
As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn't that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?
Most of them were already voting trump anyway
We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn't vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.
Hot damn I had forgotten about a new vp pick in the middle of all this. AOC won't be it but needs to be.
Is AOC old enough?
Yes she'd be 35 before taking office.
She will be before the election and long before the inauguration.
Ok, 1000 people replied, thank you, you can stop now lol
She will be by inauguration which is all that matters.
Yes, she'll be 35 by election day.
She will be by the election.
She will be by the time she'd take the oath.
that would be great, but there's no way they double down on minorities and women in the same ticket. get ready for a biden jr as the VP.
Automatic loss.
Seeing AOC oddly shill for Biden before he dropped out.. which I'd expect from Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff, but not from her. She may actually be trying to get the VP spot.
She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden's support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.
Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.
Biden bros: No one has a plan if Biden drops out. Everyone else: Here is our plan. Biden bros still: No one has a plan if Biden drops out.
Plan was open convention where delegates decide.
Yes, that's an excellent example of uncertainty.
What is better... knowing Biden would lose to Trump, or being uncertain who the delegates will choose before the convention?
Nobody knew for sure Biden would lose and nobody knows for sure that whoever is picked will win. It was high uncertainty all along.
If that's what you call a "plan", never manage anything, ever.
Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.
AOC was "shilling" for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I'm betting she will continue with the same intent.
Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for "party disunity" if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.
Biden was going to lose and he was making other Democrats lose. What did you expect the party to do, unite behind losing to Trump?
AOC was prob smart, saw Biden didn't believe he was going to lose and saw an opportunity before it played out.
Which is hilarious because Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff were all against Biden continuing in the race...
AOC understands politics and thinks things through, that's it.
AOC has always been considered an outsider to Democrat leadership. She prob was thinking things through, but I don't think it is because she thought Biden was going to win.
I agree it was likely more about party unity and not biting the hand that feeds you.
Imo she's trying to shield progressives from being the scapegoat, like how we got the blame for dem dysfunction in '16.
Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they've accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.
Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.
So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?
Biden has seriously hurt the party. If they enthrone Kamala without doing some balanced process to have her debate or compete against anyone else, and she somehow beats Trump then... I fully expect Republicans to take the House & Senate because of the damage Biden did to the party.
Politics is about compromise. I fully agree with you on that. To get things passed, you actually have to call up Republicans and ask them if they'll try to work with you and what their vision is, and what they'd like to do... and try to come to an agreement.
AOC has likely done the same here. She saw an opportunity to get something or to help progressives in some way, which required taking a backseat for a little while, but ultimately she'll get something in return. I get it and understand that. It was just surprising.
The DNC & Clinton seriously damaged the Democrat party in 2016, and Biden has restored some consistency, but it shifted significantly the right after that. Lest not forget Biden gleefully supporting a genocidal maniac and sending weapons to kill thousands of children. Its pretty sad when Democrats argue that more children would have died under Trump, so that somehow makes it okay.
Maybe she had better political acumen and knew he'd do better.
How can one know how well a candidate will do in a future election?
Maybe she saw an opportunity