https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/30/florida-democrats-dean-phillips-election-00129403
The representative says the state party has deliberately moved to keep him off the ballot. Florida Dems say he is acting “unbecoming.”
Politico.com
Anyone who thinks a sitting president won't be the party nominee in the next election (barring a case like LBJ who voluntarily chose not to run) is deluding themselves.
The only thing that could stop Biden at this point is some kind of medical intervention.
The state of the country is so bad that the only thing that bring it back is literally two accidental medical interventions. Our political system needs a major overhaul
The state of the country is so bad that...
Fundamentally disagree. If Trump and Biden both died on the same day before the election, it would not change a thing, other than make the next election even more contentious. Project 2025 doesn't go away just because Trump would be gone in that scenario.
Our political system needs a major overhaul
Agreed. It's going to take decades of concerted efforts, because the fascists aren't simply going to give up after a few losses.
It's not as if any other Republican candidate won't be a frothing fascist. We've got fucking DeSantis heeling in the wings.
And there aren't any other Democrats with enough name recognition to put forward a good game at this point. Maybe if Biden had announced he wouldn't seek a 2nd term in 2020 we'd have someone. But a sudden double-death before the general election is going to be MUCH more likely to favor a Republican.
Gavin Newsom is salivating for it, he'll be the go-to guy in '28, but someone will have to tell Harris nobody likes her.
I’d argue AOC has the name recognition, but she’d be way too polarizing to ever get her past the establishment.
Very mixed feelings. I love having her around but the president shouldn't be a "super duper senator". I disagree with AOC on a ton but wish there were 6-28 more of her.
But the best executive shouldn't have an agenda. The ideal executive turns around and says "you vote these folks in every two years, don't yell at ms"
That's obviously not the world we live in, but it's where we need to go.
And to that... There's no equivlancy here... You can vote for or against fascism next year in the US. It should be different, but that's a hypothetical. Just imagine going to an occupy Wallstreet protestor, and explaining they'd be begging for Romney. There is no choice.
The problem is that if we keep "Middle-of-the-road"ing our candidates, the overton window just keeps moving to the right.
That's why you put effort into the primary, Sanders's campaign shifted the entire party leftward
the alternative now, though, is the very real prospect of plunging deep(er) into the far-right. recovery from which would take decades.
I also think parties need to put forward people with executive experience, such as Governors and Mayors. Senators have only tangential experience
ATM that would leave a Christian Nationalist as the president. What a wonderful system we have...
Gotta get the money out and require someone to be who they say they are to share content on the Internet.
Biden should have he sense to stop Biden. And there should be an upper age limit placed on the role.
That would make a Trump victory significantly more likely. Throwing away incumbent advantage is incredibly stupid if you want to win.
Is incumbency really that big an advantage? The circumstances some, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama's second terms were quite unique and prior to those 3 only 13 others have done the consecutive terms thing. Out of 44.
I dunno... Two terms seems to be more common than that...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office
14 Presidents serving at least 2 terms, FDR elected 4 times, Cleveland having 2 non-consecutive terms, then Nixon was elected twice and removed. McKinley and Lincoln elected twice and assassinated.
My heart is with you but do you remember the last primarys? 2016 they were not. I liked some of those folks, some even more than Biden, but there was no "Obama 2.0".
I strongly dislike Joe for 1132 different reasons, but can you really imagine spooling up anyone else at this point?
I hate it. And I hope the dem party fractures into factions and the best can get through. Just after the GOP finishes it's implosion because it's terrifying.
Edit: I also had serious misgivings with Obama. But my point is of the dem primary cantidates leading up 2020 the best you can say is they were as memorable as Howard Dean.
An absolutely massive controversy could see him stepping down or losing the primary, but he hasn't had anything like that.
But there's almost no chance to beat both an incumbency bias and name recognition. Maybe if there was another contender as popular and well known they'd have a shot but probably still slim.
When was the last time a incumbent president has been defeated by a primary challenger?
In short, never. At least not in the era of modern primaries where people have a chance to vote on who will be the candidate, rather than just party leaders selecting the candidate, which began in the 1970s.
If you go back further in time, there's been a few incidents where party leaders denied their endorsement to an election incumbent for various reasons.
https://time.com/5682760/incumbent-presidents-primary-challenges/
Politico's owner, Axel Springer, started forcing a right wing bias for their reporting,
The deadline for parties to submit a list of approved candidates to state election officials is Thursday.
But Florida Democrats acted before then, sending a notice on Nov. 1 to the state that had Biden as the only primary candidate. Phillips had entered the race a few days earlier, and self-help guru Marianne Williamson had been campaigning for months by then.
So when they submitted the candidate list the Dems only had one serious candidate and nothing has changed since then. Got it.
Democrats: Trump winning the 2024 election is an eminent threat to our democracy
-- 2024 DNC Primaries --
Also Democrats : Move on there is nothing to see here
Well it is consistent with what the Dems did to Bernie during the 2016 and 2020 election cycles.
Primaries exist solely to benefit the parties.
Remember that. The states spend a lot of resources to hold primaries, but at the end of the day the purpose is to help each party have their best shot of winning the general election. If the state Democrats think this is their best option, so be it.
I mean, it's not like Democrats have convincingly pretended that the results of the primaries aren't preordained since 2016. They're just dropping the act.
The challenger that's polling 1%, he's there so they don't have to mention Marianne Williamson who's polling at 10+%.
That's not always true, there has been one example where the incumbent lost their primary, Franklin Pierce.
He was the 14th president, winning the 1852 election. His handling of the political climate before the civil war didn't get him enough support for the 1856 election, ultimately losing the primary bid to James Buchanan.
That's not even considering the multiple times when someone took over for deceased presidents, then lost their own reelection primaries afterwards.
So there is precedent for not using the incumbent. It's just usually logical to pick the person that's already won before.
Really making the name an oxymoron huh?
Thats fine im no longer supporting the two party system. Anyone who wants to run on ranked choice or proportional representation will get my vote
^Republican voter trying to generate apathy. Or worse, someone who actually believes voting 3rd party is not handing a vote to the fascist party.
Shits just gonna keep getting worse until we scrap first past the post. Even more right leaning dems against republicans holding democracy hostage.
Or worse, someone who actually believes voting 3rd party is not handing a vote to the fascist party.
Ahh yes, everyone not a democrat or republican must be a nazi. Totally sound reasoning /s
Strategic voting in the general is required. Saying otherwise is a lie. Or idiocy. You can choose.
I agree strategic voting is a good thing. I never said or implied it isn't. But it seems like your trying to straw-man me here.
Please explain how not voting for someone = handing someone else a vote.
To put it in another context, if I say I don't want to go to applebee's, does that mean I'm supporting going to olive garden? Here's another one. If a republican withholds voting for trump in the general, does that mean they are handing a vote to biden even if they don't vote for president at all?
Strategic voting in the general is required.
From the people who brought you "party unity my ass."
Anyone who wants to run on ranked choice or proportional representation will get my vote
There's a newish party for that. See the forward party.
It is an extremely prevalent delusion to think that we can only choose from the 2 parties nominees for president or any other office. But it is a very convenient delusion for party insiders and elites of DC that neither party is interested in dismantling.
That is not to say we shouldn't be strategic in our votes. That means voting for the best(This is highly subjective and will usually come down to the lesser evil) candidate there is for a given race. Because it is also a delusion to think that everyone will suddenly realize they don't have to vote for either party and elect a different candidate. Especially when other candidates aren't really much better than the party candidates.
Here's why nobody should vote for the Forward Party
Yeah, I'm not gonna watch an hour long video. If you put it in your own words why you are opposed to them, I will certainly listen. I don't come to lemmy to watch videos telling me who or what I should support. I come for discussion. So if you want to convince me, explain your view.
That's fair. It's a fun to watch infotainment type show if you're not familiar. You could probably jump to 40:48 and see most of what I say below.
Summing it up, they don't stand for anything and there is no reason for the Forward Party to actually be a party. They could simply be a voting rights activist group since that's all they claim as a platform. They don't even have Yang's signature Universal Basic Income as a policy. Yang's Old Forward Party merged with the groups Serve America Movement (SAM) and Renew America Movement (RAM). The entire party is run by former Reagan, Bush and Trump administration staff and Never Trump Republicans. Surprisingly for a party entirely based on changing the voting system, they do not advocate for elimination of the electoral college (shocking since it so heavily favors Republicans). In short, it's a conservative scam.
Thanks for giving me your take on it. My take on the Forward party in general is that it is somewhat of a single issue party focused on improving our democratic system through issues such as Ranked Choice Voting and open primaries. I do agree that a they could conceivably function as a advocacy group, and I also can see how organizing as a party can have advantages as the entire point of parties is to influence public policy like voting. They are essentially acting as an advocacy group for candidates who support their proposed reforms right now. If a state representative or senator promises to support their policies, they will help to funnel support to them by endorsing and promoting them.
State representatives are the people who have the power to change the voting system like they propose. But they do not have really have any reason to in our current system. If they replace our current First Past The Post voting system they would be opening the door for allowing more parties to have a chance to represent their constituents.
Sure, there are some conservatives that have joined, but I think you are exaggerating that the party is only run by them. Yang is on the board and he is no conservative even if he is willing to ally with them. I can understand and sympathize why you don't like the association with conservatives. I don't either really. I'm sure that part of the reason the UBI and elimination of the electoral college is absent from the platform is to get those conservatives willing to work with the party.
Conservatives control the vast majority of the state legislatures that make the rules for voting. Apparently Repubs hold 28 and Dems hold 19 currently. Both of those parties are pretty conservative by and large. One is regressive and conservative. The point is if you want to change the voting system you have to have a voice on the legislatures that make the voting rules. That is what they are attempting to build. It's not something that's gonna happen overnight.
You are welcome to believe they are a scam. I believe all parties are scams to some degree. Even so, I don't see how instituting Ranked Choice Voting is really a conservative position. It is changing the existing system which is by definition not conservative.
I have no problem with that. The parties control the primaries, the state controls the general.
Except Biden is an awful canidate. This. Right here. This is what cost the dems the election in 2016.
Stop it with the boomer “You’ll vote for who we tell you to vote for- and you’ll like it” bullshit. He’s soft in the largest generational blocs (millennials gen z) and we all know it.
Only deluded morons think that’s a good idea.
It’s okay to feel out other canidates.
He’s soft in the largest generational blocs (millennials gen z) and we all know it.
No-one in politics should give a fuck about millennials or zoomers because they don’t vote in large enough numbers to matter. If they voted, sure, cater to them. But as long as they keep having the woe is me, voting doesn’t do anything attitude, they’re going to keep getting ignored.
This is also why I think Bernie is a dumbass - not because I don’t agree with his policies, but because he tried to court people who won’t make the small effort to cast a ballot in his favor.
Boomers will all be dead before the Democratic Party considers trying to appeal to anyone else.
You need to go do some research.
2020 millennials and gen z out numbered boomers in voting. Boomers are no longer the dominate force in demographics and ignoring this fact and being assholes is just entitled bullshit that… we’re not going to forget.
magine unironically
Imagine unironically putting words in my mouth. Broader population trends show that millennials already outnumber boomers, that Gen Z out numbers Millennials, and that Gen X will only outnumber boomers as they die off (sometime around 2028,).
it's long been 'known'- though is less true today- that older people are more able and more likely to go vote. In 2020, Gen X only outvoted Millennials by about 10% which is easily accounted for by the simple ability to actually go and vote (you know, for example, being able to leave work.) even your own source shows that. Further more, your own source shows that 17% of the voters were 18-29 (more or less Gen Z), while 65+ were 16% (silent and boomer.) at 2020, the youngest boomers were 56, so half of the age range between 45-64 were boomers and the other half were gen x.
In short, your source muddles the generations and doesn't entirely support your claim. here's some sources that support my side of it:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-s-comprehensive-look-how-younger-voters-are-breaking-2020-n1240299
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/18/the-2020-election-shows-gen-zs-voting-power-for-years-to-come.html
https://time.com/6049270/2020-election-young-voters/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/millennials-and-gen-z-will-soon-dominate-us-elections/616818/
TL/DR, you're delusional if you think you can dictate who we vote for, and many of us really don't like biden.
Name a better Democrat.
They need to have a better platform, have a lot of political and funding connections, and have at least as good name recognition as Biden to have a shot at overcoming incumbency bias.
Bernie. AoC Fetterman. Dean Phillips (okay, so he doesn't have the name recognition, and he's not progressive enough for my tastes, but at least he's a decent compromise canidate- and he has the balls to say what needs to be said.)
do you really think all those superpacs and corpo donors that are propping up "the incumbency advantage" actually care who the democratic nominee is? they don't give a flying fuck.
Fetterman
He's extremely pro Israel, to the point that he came out to heckle pro Palestinian protesters while wearing the Israeli flag, and laughing in their face while they got arrested.
I liked the dude but he ain't it. Not anymore
Yeah it was really disheartening to hear. I can understand why he might take that position ideologically, but there's absolutely no reason for him to be a raging asshole about it.
All of those would lose to Trump by double digits.
Bernie - too old, Jewish, too extreme
AOC - minority, woman, young, inexperienced
Fetterman - health/mental fitness concerns
Phillips - zero name recognition and too inexperienced
(Not saying I agree with these, just that those would be what sinks them)
(Not saying I agree with these, just that those would be what sinks them)
Sure, you might not agree with those statements. but you're willing to carry the water for people that do.
The only things in your list that are reasons that don't also apply to Biden are being 'too-much-of-a-woman', 'too-much-of-a-minority', 'too extreme' and 'too inexperienced'.
I don't really want to get into the first two any further than I just did, but as far as too extreme goes. Bernie sanders is a socialist.. which is why so many Millennials (and Gen Z) supported him. it wasn't a coincidence. we support that extremism. to be perfectly honest, it's only 'extremism' compared to... you know.. the conservatives like Joe Biden (Republicans are not conservatives. Conservatives seek to maintain the status quo. Republicans are regressives. Biden is a conservative.) So, the only people who really find Bernie and other progressives "too extreme"... are the very people who're right now screaming at us to "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO". Pretty sure they're frothing at the mouth by now.
TLDR: they're not too extreme if you actually pay attention to your electorate.
Now, as for the 'Too inexperienced' bit. Sure. Biden has a shitload of experience. Too bad more than 3/4's of it apply to a world that fundamentally no longer exists. biden was born in 1942 (81 yo). the WordWideWeb was first released in 1990 (33 years). Friendster and Myspace were first launched in 2003, face book in '04 (20 years). More than half of biden's much-vaunted experience predates the internet as we know it. More than 3/4's of his this experience predates modern social media. The world is fundamentally different, and that experience isn't just something to be outright dismissed... it's something that's actively an issue. Because it creates a sort of inertia. You can see that inertia in things like his attitude towards climate change (We're society as we know it is fucked if nothing changes, and he's really quite '[meh]'(https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/business/oil-production-biden-trump/index.html).), in policing and drug policy reform (who fucking cares about social justice, huh? the corporations that put him in power don't.), in how he expects everyone to just fall into line and vote for him cuz he says so (typical boomer bullshit. Probably taught it to the boomers himself.)
Biden has been part of government for longer than I've been alive. And government has been not-working (or not working very well,) for actual Americans (it has been working very well for corporations and billionaires.) for as about as long, too. he's part of the problem. he's not being part of the solution. TLDR: Biden has a long track record of not being part of the solutions to the problems that pose an existential risk.
Oh, and a note about "name recognition". lets look at the reason no one under the age of 60 has name recognition to begine with: Its because of all the er... long-serving... senators and representatives that have refused to retire, while also failing to develop and groom the next generation to replace them. It's just another policy fuck up on the part of the DNC. a pretty egregious one, you ask me. Either way, we're going to have the crisis of "nobody else" either now or in four years, so we might as well face it now. You know. Like how Biden promised he'd only go for one term, so that, you know, they could find that candidate.... why should we believe them this time?
(edit some formatting)
I really appreciate what you are saying here. Look, I was a huge Bernie supporter. He's still the only politician I have ever donated to support.
I am a single issue voter and I think everyone should be this election. That single thing is keeping Trump away from the presidency. We are FUCKED if he gets in again.
The fact is, only 10 times in history (Trump being one) has the incumbent president lost. I don't like Biden any more than you do, but incumbency and having beaten Trump once is a resume no other candidate can match.
I think we need to be talking about Biden getting a new VP. Kamela Harris does not add to Biden's chances of winning. Whether it is simple racism/sexism or whatever, the public hates her. Let's get a VP candidate who could carry the torch for Biden after 4 years (or less if he dies in office). That would go a long way to assuage the public's concerns over Biden's age. Dean Phillips would be a great option for that. He would be perfect to pull undecided moderate voters and he would be a great public face for Democrats. (My first choice would be Fetterman, but putting that behemoth standing next to Biden would do little to help the image of Biden being feeble).
Here’s the thing.
Look at why trump and the others all lost. They were unpopular.
Your single issue is “not trump”. Yet, there are many better canidates than Biden who are also not-trump.
Incumbency is only really an advantage if your incumbent isn’t fucking the pooch. And Biden is definitely fucking the pooch. Climate, Israel/Palestine. The economy (and the disparity between their propaganda and people hurting,). The only thing he’s really got running is that he’s not trump, and somebody explained why he needs to keep his mouth shut on abortion.
Virtually any one left of center-right republicans meet that standard.
If defeating trump is your goal, wouldn’t finding the best candidate possible- and do you really think if Biden kept his word, bowed out of the second term, do you really think, that’d be a disadvantage?
Are you okay with a liar, whose soft on the largest segment because he’s constantly ignoring that segment’s needs, after trump has bad 4 years to whip his base and retcon Jan 6, while Biden and the DoJ and everyone else sat for over years with their thumbs up their asses?