The results of a poll are news and usually as factual as you can get. Their poll might be an outlier or they might have a polling bias, but unless you think they’re drawing conclusions unsupported by the poll or think their methodology is wrong, there’s not much to criticize.
Morning Consult is a well known polling company. If you’ve followed polls and aren’t familiar with them I’m amazed. They do some sort of online polling which makes them cheap and fast, but there’s nothing suspicious about them and they haven’t shown any bias I’ve recognized. It’s not a questionable source, but is just one poll so it might not be accurate.
They’ll say they’re too young and too left. Or throw 5 other things at the wall and see what gets traction. Conservative attacks have never attempted to be consistent.
Politics isn’t a left-right line where you win by being the closest to the center. A more center candidate than Biden, if such a thing even exists, would then further depress base turn out, which is already in a big flashing danger area. And the undecideds aren’t centrists, seeking maximum center, they’re some mixture of uninterested in politics and a grab bag of policy preferences that don’t fit neatly into either side.
Ukraine is in a war for survival. They just let prisoners out to fight. I doubt they’re going to go after a foreign volunteer battalion lead by fighters from one of their major suppliers of arms.
https://thedo.osteopathic.org/2024/03/get-to-know-president-bidens-physician-kevin-oconnor-do/
His responsibilities have evolved over the years, but Dr. O’Connor says the most important part of each day is saying, “Good morning, Mr. President.”
Because Dr. O’Connor and his team are some of the first people President Biden will see each day, Dr. O’Connor stresses the importance of greeting the President affirmatively and making themselves available. This simple engagement can help to set the mood for the rest of the day.
Osteopathic medicine isn’t quite quackery, they’re actual doctors, but it’s very questionable.
Biden steps aside and literally anyone else becomes the third option. Like, do they automatically win? No, but it’s a third option. This whole debate is about the third option, and those pathways are being talked about by Democratic elected officials, not randos on message boards. It’s a real option, so calling that a false dilemma is entirely correct.
Nah, not a chance. She hasn’t been mentioned in anything, feels old when we want someone who isn’t, and is a proven failure. Some diehards can say it’s “not her fault”, but we’re all traumatized due to her failure. Same way some people still post Notorious RGB style memes, but they just cause discomfort among the rank and file that now associate her with stubbornness resulting in massive Democratic backslide. Normies don’t hate her, but they rightfully recognize that she’s problematic and power brokers know when someone’s dead-on-arrival. There are plenty of corporate Democrats that haven’t been publicly tarnished for them to invest in.
I feel like being an inspiring charismatic leader is kind of incompatible with the gauntlet that would get someone pre-approved as a party-selected candidate. I’m having a hard time thinking of an establishment-favored figure who’s really charismatic. Buttigieg maybe? But he was sort of out of left field and it feels like he’s been more of a tool to deploy to soften bad news stories than someone the establishment is raising up as a potential next big thing. Booker is probably the most party-supported charismatic figure, but I don’t think relentless positivity is enough to lead in times where lots of people are legitimately angry.
My theory is that Obama, for all the success he brought to the party, shook it up in ways the establishment structure really didn’t like. Since then they haven’t really been looking for the next Obama, because populism is dangerous to established power structures. That’s why the 2020 convention didn’t have a keynote speaker, it had 17 all saying a line or two from a speech, which means none of the “rising voices” actually has a chance to break out.
What test? You’re just butting in with an argument that wasn’t present in this comment thread. If you want to just make a comment about the post title, make it top-level on the post itself.
It is 100% going to be an establishment hack, I have no doubt in my mind about that, but I don’t care. Biden is an establishment hack, but one who most importantly can’t win the election. We’re not getting worse moving to a different hack that can form thoughts on the fly.
Why are you replying to me?
The point remains true.
The call to remove the presumptive candidate is an entirely different thing than saying “and put our chosen person in instead”. If he said a specific person you’d criticize him for trying to decide for the whole party.
The replacement should be chosen after consideration by a much broader group, either behind closed doors by party leadership if it’s Harris, or by the delegates if it’s not (or they simply don’t think directly installing her is the best move).
It’s really coming across as stubborn arrogance. I make the decisions and I’ve proven to myself I’m fit, so you all have to just get in line. It’s true he has almost all the power to make this choice, but he doesn’t seem to get that if he doesn’t justify it to the people he’s going to keep losing support and then lose the election.
There’s really no reason to jump to him rather than someone already in national politics, but winning a senate seat in Texas is actually harder than winning the presidency.
That he’s not even trying to throw anyone under the bus in the campaign to shake things up is almost just as concerning as him refusing to accept the obvious. The only message we have is “everything’s fine, stay the course” and that Biden will adopt an old man schedule, neither of which is reassuring.
The layers of protection provided in the Supreme Court ruling makes it very easy to justify either immunity or simply excluding all evidence of a non-official crime. It’s much broader than just “official vs. non-official”. The LegalEagle YouTube channel has a good run through of all the ways in which immunity or effective immunity could be achieved and it’s bad. “Top 5 worst Supreme Court rulings ever.”
Asked whether it was a bad episode or a sign of a more serious condition, Biden dismissed those concerns.
This is a bad word choice (from Pelosi originally). Episodes are things that happen multiple times. And commonly used to describe dementia. They’re signs of a serious condition. Having an episode is not reassuring (but he wasn’t presented with a “isolated event” option).
They did a test to see whether or not I had some infection, you know, a virus. I didn’t. I just had a really bad cold.
A cold is a viral infection. And usually has symptoms other than cognitive failure. I assume they’ve realized that “12-day jet lag” isn’t a good excuse for someone who needs to fly often.
That a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them could possibly be shielded by this ruling demonstrates just how insane it is.
Letting convicts join under very strict rules is literally letting prisoners out to fight.
And sure, they could negotiate with America on penalties. Or they could turn a blind eye because they’re in a war for survival and these are volunteer units of foreigners. It would be nice if war crimes enforcement was a top priority in every war, but the United States doesn’t do it when we have the universal upper hand and can easily loose a few fighters without it having any impact on our success or sovereignty.