this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
102 points (73.4% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4472 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.

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Thank fuck. This man can go down in history as the savior of the Republic if he fucks off and endorses someone else.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All we need is a charismatic person and the country will vote for them. The American people can not stand uncharismatic blowhards and yet Dems keep trying to shove them in our faces. They are obsessed with tradition and this “my turn” bullshit. Enough is enough already.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Newsome is charismatic but would be a hard sell to Georgia and the Midwest.

Whitmer would be good since she'd motivate more women to vote and would do will in the Midwest.

Harris is right out. She has negative charisma.

Raskin has charisma but he's an old ugly white guy. Wouldn't turn out the youth vote.

Jeffries would be a good pick if he had started campaigning a year ago.

Stacy Abrams is in the same boat. If she had a year to get more name recognition she'd have a chance.

Aoc, Crockett, and moskowitz are good back benchers but won't be ready for a few more years yet, if ever.

If I had to choose it'd be Whitmer. She has the fewest negatives, as long as there are no skeletons in the closet waiting to come out.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Here's a recent poll where Michele Obama came out more than two margins of errors of ahead of Trump.
Also, here's a pile of salt.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All solid names. Any one of them has my vote.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah and give it two weeks and they'll all poll worse because the spin machine aimed at them.

People are deluded to think a fresh face is gonna be better than the incumbent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are underestimating how stupid the average voter is. We couldn’t get the Midwest to vote for Hillary in 2016 and that was suppose to be her safe zone. The smallest advantage is still an advantage for trump. People have been saying they don’t want Biden since 2 years ago and this only makes it worse for him. Being incumbent president means nothing at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The stupid average voter is barely even aware of anything, let alone one bad debate. They haven't had to think about Biden for four years. They won't even remember that come November if they ever did hear of it.

You're trading complacency and incumbency for a complete unknown. That's the dumbest fucking thing you can do, to put it lightly.