politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Compared to other democratic candidates, biden has a leg up because incumbency. This link is about the nominee, not who wins.
And trump absolutely benefited from incumbency. The whole GOP practically rebuilt itself around him.
It's irrelevant if it doesn't actually propel you past the finish-line, though, isn't it? So explain to me how incumbency and the DNC "building itself around" Biden is substantively altering the outcome of, for emphasis:
I'll wait.
Next, answer this: Joe Biden is not the nominee yet either, for the convention has yet to happen. Now let's be clear: In the event Biden voluntarily steps down and either an open convention occurs or he endorses, is it really that inconceivable for you to believe overnight polling for such a candidate would skyrocket as both grassroots and establishment and MASSIVE widespread media press inundate such a person with coverage...?
So at the end of the day, we have high confidence Biden will lose in November 6th if we stay the course. If that's the case, I believe we should take the chance to put someone fresh in and who is younger. That assuages a major concern for 70% of the electorate and reinvigorates people to vote for someone new. As Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans love new shit."
Okay I didn't that because its likely off topic.
This article is about a statistic, which says (very narrowly) that Biden (is currently) polling better than other hypothetical nominees. I'm saying that this is because Biden is more well known, due to his incumbency.
This statistic does not and can not sat anything about if a different Democratic candidate would poll better or worse than Biden if they were nominated or were the presumptive nominee.
Because Biden is the president, he is in the news more, and is more recognizable, and thus more people "like" him than whoever else was listed on this study.
There is a reason incumbents are almost always the nominee. Voters are generally not well educated and the vast majority of them just know Biden.
I will agree with the longstanding precedent of incumbent-advantage; but I do not see how that shores up support here and in the now. Put it this way: Polls show incumbent advantage is doing fundamentally nothing to put Biden past the numbers he needs in order to cross the finish-line.
And But don't you think Biden's numbers -- steadily declining for months if not years, mind you -- are sort of baked in? Media saturation has taken place, and Biden in the spotlight long enough that projections would suggest nothing will fundamentally change and that these are losing numbers -- yes? So between knowing we will likely lose versus taking the gamble of garnering viral excitement from nominating a younger fresh face, the latter would be better in my view.
Look I'm sorry, but you gave zero response to the damaging statistics I mentioned except to point vaguely toward incumbency which clearly isn't helping enough with the output of those statistics. So can changing candidates do more? I think so.