• Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Then name a name.

    Who has that kind of charisma and name recognition, with no baggage, that they can storm in like the Koolaid man and take this election?

    No? Yeah, I didn’t think so. You have been shitting on Biden every thread, even non-Biden related posts, for this entire election year and have never offered an alternative.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You’d have to be blind not to see the news articles dropping names for the past few weeks.

      Whitmer

      Newsom

      Shapiro

      Walz

      Buttigieg

      Generic Democrat

      Even Harris polls better than Biden

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Whitmer, Shaprio, Walz, Buttigieg all don’t have the nationwide name recognition needed to hit the ground running with so little time before elections.

        Newsom only has name recognition because the Right has been demonizing him for years because they recognized him as a threat. We’d just have a repeat of Hillary.

        I’m not saying that these wouldn’t make decent candidates in a normal Primary time frame. But it would spell disaster to pivot to any of these candidates this late in the race.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Four months is not “so little time”. And I agree that Shapiro and Walz have branding issues, but 4 months, the entire news media and DNC war chest would be enough to solve that. Newsom doesn’t have nearly the baggage Hillary had either. Hillary had baggage going back to 1992. Newsom has baggage from ~5 years ago? At that point there’s no one qualified to run, not even Biden.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s short enough time that a new nominee would literally be disqualified from the ballot in some states.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The only state that requires certification before the convention is Ohio. A state we aren’t counting on and have little to no chance to win unless we suddenly run Reagan 2.0.

              There’s 49 other states that would still be in play, including all of the normal blue states and swing states.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Ohio even passed a special exception to extend the deadline to after the convention, though it’s unclear from the news I read whether there might be some risk of it being overturned by the court if Democrats needed it.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Oh I don’t think anyone is really depending on Ohio to keep its word on that. But there’s definitely a cursed timeline where Harris is the nominee out of the convention, Ohio withdraws their promise, and Democrats get close enough with a write in campaign that it’s plausible she would have taken Ohio. Cue more political violence.

                  At any rate I’m sure that has no chance of happening in our timeline, none whatsoever. Definitely not.

                  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Well, they did pass the law. It’s just whether it can be invalidated in courts because they poisoned it with a provision to bar permanent residents (green card holders) from contributing to campaigns, which is likely unconstitutional. In a normal world, the individual ban would be thrown out, as it doesn’t really have anything to do with ballot registration, but there’s little reason to think the Supreme Court wouldn’t rule in a way that disadvantages Democrats.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              This is a lie. It’s been a lie, and you should know better by now rather than repeating it.

        • knightly the Sneptaur
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m entirely serious. The Republicans can rally around a criminal billionaire and still expect to take the white house, so why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian? I trust the guy that coined the term “enshittification” a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

          • bobthecowboy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you’re “entirely serious” in the literal sense, just to be super clear the answer to “why can’t the Democrats run an intellectual Canadian?” is that a Canadian is disqualified from the office of the President in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn’t think to prohibit megalomaniac felons. That’s apparently on us. :(

            • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The writers of the 14th Amendment did, but for some reason they figured the president didnt need to be called out specifically in the final draft; probably figured it was obvious the president is an officer of the state. But well, we know how scotus took that

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The sad thing is, I do think you’re serious, and it speaks to the overarching theme of REALLY REALLY STUPID voters this election, on both sides.

            • knightly the Sneptaur
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              Then maybe it’s time for you to admit that there’s nothing Democratic about elections in this country and to start treating them with the contempt that they deserve.

              Elections don’t exist to pick leaders, that’s a mere side effect of their real purpose: the reification of the implied consent of the governed.

          • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I trust the guy that coined the term “enshittification” a whole lot more than the politicians who have been enabling it, anyhow.

            Cool so he has your vote. Who else? As expected the people who want Biden to bail at the 11th hour have no actionable plan.

            • knightly the Sneptaur
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The problem with demanding “actionable plans” is that the only person who could enact them is the DNC chairperson, who currently reports to the incumbent.