this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
470 points (98.8% liked)

politics

29616 readers
1470 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.

BOTH parties do that! The system seems to filter out the best candidates, and reward the worst. If there was ever proof that the system is broken, it's that.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not accurate at all, the Democrats were the only ones to force a new candidate without a primary. The current president won a crowded primary I would remind you.

The Democrats had four plus months to go and claimed it was not enough time to run a contest and indeed not a single Democrat through their head in the ring despite the anointed never breaching 30% approval all term before her anointment, not having one a single state in the primary she participated in, and being hated by both the actual left, which is not include the Democratic sheep obviously, and all across the right.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't use 2024 as an example, that was the sole outlier of an election, and did not represent anybody's best wishes.

You act like they did it out of pure contempt for the voters, without addressing the fact that the Democratic campaign became a 3 alarm fire after the debate. Biden was a mess, far more than we knew, and it was clear he was unfit to serve another term, even if it was due to the poor excuse of a cold and medication. I've lived with someone who passed from dementia, and there was no doubt in my mind what I was witnessing that night. It was shocking, and something had to be done.

With only a few months before the General Election, it would have been impossible to put together a nationwide primary with multiple candidates. Anyone who thinks that would have been possible, has no idea what goes into holding an election, especially a national Presidential election in 50 states. In the time frame you want candidates to decide, raise money, and campaign, while simultaneously the election teams that have been organizing the Presidential Election now have to split off valuable workers, to operate this emergency primary, mere months before the actual PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

How can anyone possibly think that would go well for anyone, and not be a monumental disaster of historical proportions?

OTOH, we have a Vice-President, next in line anyway, and if he steps down, she steps in, and we're doing a re-election campaign. The only problem was that nobody wanted to have the hard talk with him (and his family, they always said, because yeah, it's clear he can't handle this on his own), or to 25th Amendment the venerable old guy, even though his condition was EXACTLY what it was meant to handle.

And it wasn't like anyone could make a credible case that she wasn't a viable nominee anyway. She wasn't a Sarah Palin by any stretch of the imagination. There were all these comparisons to her past primary, as if she didn't just spent the last 4 years at the very top levels of power. In anyone else's job, how much stronger would they be if they spent four years working with the top people in their industry? Nobody would question it. In a primary, especially a chaotic emergency one, it's a pretty good bet that she would have won anyway.

So it was essentially a re-election campaign for the (v)P, with just that pesky resignation step missing, because they were either too polite to press the issue (so common for weak Dems), or he was too stubborn to quit, which would be a common trait for dementia, believe me.

Most people recognized that at the time, and that's why we accepted her with open arms. Lest you forget, she raised an enormous amount of money in the next 24 hours, and even more beyond that. I happened to go to a corporate event the next day, with a lot of lesbians in attendance, and they were practically giddy with joy.

The idea that people opposed this oppressive edict from the DNC is greatly overblown. It wasnt the ideal situation, but Harris was a reasonable choice under the extreme emergency circumstances.

There were a lot of other factors that came into play, like MAGA voter fraud, Biden's enthusiastic support of genocide, etc.