523
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
523 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2701 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
I get it. Changing the engine out mid-flight comes with a lot of uncertainty. Would selecting a new candidate go smoothly, would a new candidate be able to get momentum, what happens if a new candidate is worse, etc.
Biden wasn’t great, but people were worried about all the unknowns.
If they were worried than they weren't listening to the criticisms of Biden...
Like, I understand why they were wrong, that doesn't mean they weren't wrong.
In your example, not changing the engine would have likely resulted in a crash...
So people insisting we kept trying to fly and just ignored the burning engine we needed to replace wouldn't exactly be considered logical
What a strange place you've chosen to grind your axe. This article is about the House of Representatives.
The article is about the change from Biden to Kamala is showing signs it will boost the House...
It's literally the first line in the article...
Did you just read the headline and comments? That might be why you're confused
I get what he's saying. You're here grinding your anti-Biden ax, long after Biden's no longer on the ballot. You might have had a valid question about why everyone was so hesitant to change horses mid-race. Jesus answered that question. We took a risk that could have resulted in a much worse outcome because frequently in history, it has. And Harris was an uninspired candidate in 2020, which many of us worried she'd be in 2024. That should be good enough to end this conversation...maybe with a 'Gee, I'm glad Harris upped her game between 2020 and now because we needed what we got this last month,' if you ABSOLUTELY have to.
But you're harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives. You're getting heavily downvoted and questioned about your motive. Maybe read the room? Biden is yesterday's news. The only reason we think you're harping on him is to try to depress Democratic turnout and we're telling you to knock it the fuck off.
Mate...
Read the first sentence of the article...
But the whole article is literally about how switching from Biden is showing signs of helping the House, it's what the article is literally about...
How is commenting on the subject of the article not relevant to the article?
First, I'm not your mate so knock that shit off.
Second, the article is about the House, not about Biden. I don't fucking care what the first sentence says because the article is no more about the first fucking sentence than it is about the headlines or comments. Again. We're seeing your concerns and telling you to fuck off with that bullshit.
Well, you definitely didn't read any of that, because the whole article is quotes of people saying Biden stepping aside is helping down ballot races...
Like this:
Or this:
Seriously, it's the entire article mate.
Removed, civility.
I understand the content of the article, I just didn't understand the necessity of your comment in relation to it. There isn't a way we can quash this easily, let's just move on.
Just saying that people knew Biden was a risky candidate, and people worried that swapping out the incumbent might increase the risk.
People were making their best guesses with the information they had at the time. The only way to know for sure is to have a multiverse Time Machine.
Correct. A repeat of 1968 was not just possible but likely. Thankfully all resources and support were put behind Harris instead of fracturing across multiple candidates. Had the opposite happened it would have been 1968 all over again.
Or they could have listened to what was perhaps the largest outcry from voters of the Dem party, or polls, or Biden himself when he (rarely) spoke in public.
Which is why I said:
But this:
Makes it sound like there was no way to tell Biden was a poor candidate, and people who spent months saying he was were just coincidentally right.
We just disagree man, you think there was no way to tell, I think it was blatantly obvious and everyone should have been able to tell
It's not a big deal that we disagree, we don't have to keep rehashing it
Coming from the person whose full-time job is apparently commenting the same 2-3 stale arguments on literally any thread that even tangentially involves Biden, Harris, or the Democrats, that's absolutely rich.
Removed, civility.