The quote:

“Given Joe Biden’s incredible record, given Donald Trump’s terrible record: he should be mopping the floor with Donald Trump. Joe Biden is running against a criminal. It should not be even close. And there is only one reason it is close. And that is the president’s age.”

1 point

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Asked about polling that showed Harris outperforming Trump if she replaced Biden, Schiff said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he thought she would be a “phenomenal president.”

“I think she has the experience, the judgment, the leadership ability to be an extraordinary president,” Schiff told moderator Kristen Welker.

Schiff also said Biden’s interview with ABC News that aired on Friday wasn’t enough to quell mounting concerns from Democrats about his mental fitness.

Can he demonstrate to the American people that what happened on the debate stage was an aberration, that he can and will beat Donald Trump.”

Front-line Democrats who spoke to NBC News say they fear that his debate performance has done irreversible damage to his candidacy.

Biden remained publicly defiant in the face of calls from some Democrats to drop out of the race, repeatedly saying that only “the Lord Almighty” could convince him to end his bid for a second term in office.


The original article contains 628 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
57 points

Kamala Harris could win “overwhelmingly”

Citation needed.

permalink
report
reply
-13 points

…its…

Its in the article?

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

The reason given in the article is “Because I, Adam Schiff, think so” - all the hard data we have (competive polls, opinion polls, historical references) gives a pretty bleak outlook for a Harris presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-17 points

I mean.

Schiff said the thing. So there is your citation for the quote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Without even looking at polls, and knowing how much racism and misogyny there is, as well as the outcome of 2016, I have my doubts about Kamala as a viable candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s a lie though, the data we have literally says the opposite. Which is why all the party power players are in favor of Biden shuffling off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

She is hated more than Biden. I doubt this would play out as intended.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Polls have her doing better than Biden. You could do worse than running a woman when abortion is on the ballot (and by worse I mean, for example, a catholic who’s visibly queasy about actually supporting bodily autonomy). She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote, and she’s responsible for a lot of Biden’s support among black Americans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

She’s only polling better because that’s what the media wants you to believe. Polls are meaningless and are only valuable to those pushing the polls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

She also gets you back the anti-genocide vote

I hadn’t heard that she’s diverged from the administration on this issue. But I would add that the anti-genocide vote is also anti-cop, and Harris is a cop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Yes, but that was before everyone saw a sundowning POTUS on that debate stage.

Attitudes have changed amongst the DNC establishment, at least according to the reporting.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard similar feelings echoed in far left/socialist circles.

I will say I haven’t seen any new polling that take recent events into account. I assume those figures exist, I just haven’t seen you come across my feeds yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

The last polling I saw on her actually had her doing considerably better than Biden. Her approval rating is about the same, but her disapproval is much lower. She’s not the strongest candidate, and I don’t particularly like her, but she’s got a better shot than Biden at this point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
90 points

Hillary Clinton ran against a sexual predator. She should have mopped the floor with him. She didn’t.

Any election against Trump will be close. The problem isn’t age. The problem is Trump supporters.

permalink
report
reply
51 points

The problem is that Republicans don’t vote for a candidate they vote for a party. The Republicans could run Hitler’s reanimated corpse as their candidate and as long as it had that R next to its name it would get their vote. Democrats on the other hand are much more likely to not vote for or not even show up to vote at all for a candidate they don’t particularly like. It’s why good Democrat candidates always beat Republican candidates of any kind, but bad candidates usually lose. Democrats massively outnumber Republicans, but the Democrat party nearly always runs the worst possible candidate. If Republicans win any election it’s not because they had a good candidate, it’s always because Democrats ran a bad one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.

So, under the leadership of Clinton, Pelosi, and Schumer, they chose to make the swing voters the ones they appeal to most. Maybe Bernie’s positive populism would have matched up better against Trump’s negative populism than Clinton’s outdated neoliberalism. But leadership and the DNC would rather lose an election and keep control than win but lose their place atop the party hierarchy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

My pet theory is that the establishment wing of the party (that largely controls the DNC) wants to have a specific coalition that keeps them in power within the party. Like, if Democrats wanted to be the party of the working class or appeal to rural voters, they could but would require leadership that isn’t from New York, San Francisco, or other similarly rich places.

I think it’s simultaneously less conspiratorial and more nefarious than that: the establishment wing of the party likes power and power means control over campaign funding, so they pander to large corporate donors by suppressing anti-corporate populists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

That, and how much the rural vote is overly counted.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

No, the problem is democrats refusing to run a real populist against a fake populist like Trump. Instead we get the same establishment garbage, which is exactly what the Trump campaign is geared towards defeating. Schiff is also incorrect - Kamala would be just as bad in this regard.

If Dems run a real populist who is a champion of the people, not the corporations, Trump would be exposed and the whole MAGA movement would fall apart at the seams.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If a populist can’t beat Biden in a primary then they won’t beat Trump in the general

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

There was no primary in good faith, Biden didn’t even entertain a debate with those running. His admin colluded with state DNC boards to cancel primaries in some states, and remove contenders from the ballot in others. Establishment Dems bullied and threatened major contenders behind the scenes to prevent them from even attempting to run. In light of recent events it’s quite obvious why.

So to me this isn’t a valid argument for Biden’s legitimacy, quite the opposite in fact. And quite ironic in an election where “democracy is on the line.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

A vote for Biden is a vote for Harris… so…

permalink
report
reply
3 points

Yeah really, if you like Harris, just vote for Biden and wait a couple of months.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

You can do it Joe!

permalink
report
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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments