-24
House GOP investigators accuse Biden of ‘impeachable conduct’ in long-awaited report
(www.politico.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
-24 points (14.7% liked)
Conservative
384 readers
65 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
.. how would that be beneficial to anyone?
Incumbents typically win elections. People wouldn't be as uncertain about her. She could jump in and start pushing her policies. Since none of her policies could get implemented before election, nor the consequences of them, she would slide right into office.
… right. Im not even going to bother trying to unpack that complete nonsense.
It isn't nonsense. If you don't understand basic political theory, that is on you. It is well-known incumbents have a much better chance against a challenger.
Incumbents do have a better chance. But impeaching the current one to suddenly put a VP in, and then applying the same logic of “incumbent better” makes no sense.
She would be the incumbent at that point. The Democrats have a Biden problem. This would allow them to remove the problem and get Kamala some early attention.
If she goes through the normal cycle, she will most likely lose. Both sides have attacked her first policy discussions as horrible. That is only going to get worse as she starts to debate and push her agenda.
Except Biden isn’t running? How do they have a “Biden problem” if he isn’t even running for election?
What are you basing that on?
Have you not kept up on any of the news? Biden is still seen as a liability to the party. The quicker they get him out, the better.
Once she starts talking policies, her ratings will drop like a rock. There is a reason why she has lost the primaries in the past. She doesn't have good policies.
Cite your statements. Don’t dodge the question.
What specifically do you find confusing? Do you think Kamala is just going to skate into the office? Nobody is predicting that.
I suggest you read Nate Silver, who has discussed this topic extensively.
Dodge. Dodge. Dodge the questions!
This is why no one bothers engaging with you.
Who said anything was confusing? I am trying to work out where you are getting your position from. Apparently the best you can do is state “Read Nate Silver”.
I guess your position then is just regurgitate whatever Nate Silver says?
edit
Heres Nate Silver talking about latest polls
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
I am not dodging anything. You are not being clear. Can you be more clear about what is confusing you?
Yes, read Nate Silver, as you seem ignorant about the topic, which should help educate you. You seem to think Kamala is a slam dunk to win, which is not what the experts say. Right now, she doesn't have the 4% needed to win the national election.
Give his latest article a read. And then tell me again how “shes going to lose because nate silver said so”
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model
I never said Nate said she would lose. What I said is she is not guaranteed to win. Her numbers don't show that. What Nate has said is that once she starts to talk about policies, she may lose her lead. He has also said she needs a 4% national advantage is win, which she doesn't have.
What are you basing your position on
Nate Silver never said that
What are you even on about. Are you just trolling?
She is already starting to drop in polls sooner than the experts expected. Trump has focused on name calling which isn't helping him. If he focused on policies, he will crush her.
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-suffers-triple-polling-blow-before-dnc-convention-1940947
Finally! You engage in a real discussion and post a source which backs up your claim
https://www.natesilver.net/p/can-kamala-harris-win-in-incumbent
Yes. The sources to back your claims up. Which I repeatedly asked for many comments ago
Can you backup your claim that incumbents share no advantage?
Thats not what I said. Here, I will copy and paste it to make it nice and easy for you
Try again.
It makes perfect sense if you understand Biden is a liability, and she would become the incumbent.
An incumbent after four years in power has an advantage.
Suddenly changing the incumbent via impeachment months before election has not been tried. It makes no sense to think it would have identical impact on the election as being in power for a full term.
It's soooo funny when people who are voting for a racist, fascist, famously loathed conman try and tell real Americans about political strategy.
Nah, we're good. 😂
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4834413-david-axelrod-democratic-strategist/
Trump is actually too stupid to comprehend what policies he’s supposed to be discussing. I like when he explained recently “a tariff is a tax on a foreign country!”. What a moron. It’s sad that the GOO came up with such a complete cretin as their candidate again.
@breadsmasher @wintermute_oregon #Reuters themselves did say that the #DNC is expected to be "vibe-heavy, policy-light", which could signal that #KamalaHarris' policies, at least internally, are viewed more as a liability than an asset.
https://x.com/Reuters/status/1825533278192837040
They are a huge liability, which is why they are trying to avoid them. Her policies will cause massive inflation and instability in the economy.
This is an incredibly simplistic theory.