Democrats have all the spontaneity of the House of Windsor. Or, closer to home, they’re closer to what Republicans once were, a party that falls in line not in love.

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    I would totally be open to someone other than Biden running… If the DNC (or any party) had actually started promoting and positioning anyone good 2-3 years ago.

    It’s too late now. Biden is the guy.

    And all the people on the Internet I see whining about how they don’t like the choices available: if you actually want to do anything productive instead of just bitching you need to do the work in advance. Get involved with political organizations, campaigns, etc.

    Even looking further ahead to he 2028 elections (assuming the US is still having elections)… Who is the DNC planning on running? Harris is cop who doesn’t excite anyone. AOC is probably too polarizing to get moderate support, and is probably move valuable in Congress right now. Newsome maybe? I hate to throw out celebrities, but it’s happened enough that it’s possible and John Stewart seems like he might just go for it. Heck, even he is 62 right now, so he’d be 66 if he ran in 2028, and 67 by inauguration day.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Everything about the administration makes it seem like they’re trying to promote and position Harris. Just trying and just being someone younger than Biden isn’t enough, it has to be someone who can hold together his coalition and there just isn’t anyone who totally fits, that’s why we are where we are.

      2028 will be Harris, Newsome, Buttigieg probably, maybe Fetterman depending on recovery. Gretchen Whitmer and Andy Beshear are Democratic governors with a decent story to tell. AOC will take the Bernie campaign to the next generation no doubt. I don’t think the bench is that barren, but none of these people have a particularly compelling reason to declare in 2024 because they’re all just decent candidates, not overwhelming favorites.

      The closest thing to an overwhelming candidate taking on a 1 term president was DeSantis, and he crumbled eventually.

      • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Everything about the administration makes it seem like they’re trying to promote and position Harris

        Why do you think this? I think I’ve seen a handful of articles about Harris the whole term and people on the Internet who don’t like her claim that she will be pushed. Id say Newsome is def being positioned to run tho

        • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There’s not one big “they” out there pulling all the strings. Newsom is positioning himself to run in 2028. The Administration is positioning Harris as heir apparent. I don’t think there is any conspiracy to put Harris at the top of the ticket, but her entire job is being there if Biden dies, and I think it’s pretty reasonable to think Biden wants her to run after his 2 terms are up, they agree enough on politics and he picked her to be VP.

          I say they’re positioning her because for the above reasons it would be extremely useful to have a popular young VP waiting on deck, and they might as well try. But I see it in every press release and announcement from the “Biden-Harris Administration” and they made her border czar and they’re sending her everywhere to talk about abortion, they’re putting her around important political issues so she can run on experience in the future.

      • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        The superdelegates have informed us of how they intend to vote [before the actual election] and we can conclusively call this election for you being wrong about that.

        • dudinax@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          In 2008 the super delegates were all decided for Clinton. They switched when Obama won the votes.

          • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            So? It’s still the DNC keeping a thumb on the scales. It’s a little like saying that because the king was benevolent and listened to the people that one time, the monarchy isn’t flawed and ought to be preserved. If the superdelegates didn’t like Obama, there was never any obligation to switch their votes to align with the will of the voters. And let’s not overlook how massively shitty it is that the DNC is literally trying to pick winners by announcing who they plan to vote for before actual voters cast votes.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that they let Obama win and he immediately sold out after running a progressive campaign.