You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

I don’t think the opinion “the man who has control of the nuclear arsenal is showing signs of senility and should not serve another 4 years regardless of who replaces him” is not an unreasonable one

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points
*

When the current only alternative is someone with clearly worse faculties and intentions, it obviously fucking is. Again, name who you think can beat him. Go ahead. Take into account the entire current political climate. We’ll wait.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

this is kinda a ridiculous request. The DNC should be the ones actively finding and presenting alternatives. If it was any other election year what if something happened to their primary candidate?

No one publicly shows interest because the party prevents any alternative. Anyone trying to run is accused of trying to break up the party, look at what happened to Bernie.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I advocated for Bernie, during the primaries, when it was time to choose a Democratic candidate. Note that that time is not now. Now is the time where a democratic candidate need to beat Trump. Do you think even swapping Bernie in now that he could beat Trump?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The Polymarket prediction markets gives odds for who will win the presidential election and who will win the democratic nominee. We can compare the odds of each candidate and use Bayes Theorem to determine their chances of winning the presidency if they secure the DNC nomination.

Here’s the results as of posting this comment:

Joe Biden: 27% Kamala Harris: 50% Michelle Obama: 100% Gavin Newsom: 66% Other: 50%

Obviously this doesn’t work perfectly (the Michelle Obama example especially is bizarre), but there is over $300M behind these numbers so people seem to think they’re at least somewhat accurate.

TLDR: there is a lot of money that thinks Joe Biden is one of the worst options

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
0 points

Kucinich

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

No one knows who that is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

It wouldn’t be if there were an alternative who was not showing similar or worse signs of senility. When both of the only feasible candidates have the same issue, that issue is mostly moot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You don’t think if Biden stepped down and it was an open primary there wouldn’t be some good options?

Pete Buttigeig, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, anyone under 60 would make Trump look like a dottering old man in comparison

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I agree that those would be good candidates. I have little confidence that they would defeat Trump, especially now with relatively little name recognition among people who don’t actively follow the news.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 109K

    Comments