• Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Its still crazy to me so many people wanted to keep Biden

    I get it. Changing the engine out mid-flight comes with a lot of uncertainty. Would selecting a new candidate go smoothly, would a new candidate be able to get momentum, what happens if a new candidate is worse, etc.

    Biden wasn’t great, but people were worried about all the unknowns.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they were worried than they weren’t listening to the criticisms of Biden…

      Like, I understand why they were wrong, that doesn’t mean they weren’t wrong.

      In your example, not changing the engine would have likely resulted in a crash…

      So people insisting we kept trying to fly and just ignored the burning engine we needed to replace wouldn’t exactly be considered logical

      • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        What a strange place you’ve chosen to grind your axe. This article is about the House of Representatives.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          The article is about the change from Biden to Kamala is showing signs it will boost the House…

          It’s literally the first line in the article…

          Did you just read the headline and comments? That might be why you’re confused

          • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I get what he’s saying. You’re here grinding your anti-Biden ax, long after Biden’s no longer on the ballot. You might have had a valid question about why everyone was so hesitant to change horses mid-race. Jesus answered that question. We took a risk that could have resulted in a much worse outcome because frequently in history, it has. And Harris was an uninspired candidate in 2020, which many of us worried she’d be in 2024. That should be good enough to end this conversation…maybe with a ‘Gee, I’m glad Harris upped her game between 2020 and now because we needed what we got this last month,’ if you ABSOLUTELY have to.

            But you’re harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives. You’re getting heavily downvoted and questioned about your motive. Maybe read the room? Biden is yesterday’s news. The only reason we think you’re harping on him is to try to depress Democratic turnout and we’re telling you to knock it the fuck off.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              But you’re harping on Biden in an article about the House of Representatives

              Mate…

              Read the first sentence of the article…

              Democratic strategists and organizers are hoping that if 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris performs well in the November election, there will be a down-ballot effect in gubernatorial, U.S. Senate and U.S. House races.

              But the whole article is literally about how switching from Biden is showing signs of helping the House, it’s what the article is literally about…

              How is commenting on the subject of the article not relevant to the article?

              • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                First, I’m not your mate so knock that shit off.

                Second, the article is about the House, not about Biden. I don’t fucking care what the first sentence says because the article is no more about the first fucking sentence than it is about the headlines or comments. Again. We’re seeing your concerns and telling you to fuck off with that bullshit.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  the article is no more about the first fucking sentence than it is about the headlines or comments

                  Well, you definitely didn’t read any of that, because the whole article is quotes of people saying Biden stepping aside is helping down ballot races…

                  Like this:

                  Outgoing Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH) also believes that having Harris as the presidential nominee instead of Biden improves’ Democrats’ chances of flipping the House.

                  Kuster told The Hill, “The path we were on was unsustainable. To be earnest, I thought we were going to lose 20-plus seats. And lose the Senate, and lose the White House.”

                  Or this:

                  In an article Tuesday, The Hill’s Mike Lillis reports that Democrats are "increasingly bullish about their chances of flipping the House now that Harris, and not President Joe Biden, will sit at the top of the ticket.

                  Seriously, it’s the entire article mate.

          • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I understand the content of the article, I just didn’t understand the necessity of your comment in relation to it. There isn’t a way we can quash this easily, let’s just move on.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Just saying that people knew Biden was a risky candidate, and people worried that swapping out the incumbent might increase the risk.

        People were making their best guesses with the information they had at the time. The only way to know for sure is to have a multiverse Time Machine.

        • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Correct. A repeat of 1968 was not just possible but likely. Thankfully all resources and support were put behind Harris instead of fracturing across multiple candidates. Had the opposite happened it would have been 1968 all over again.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          Or they could have listened to what was perhaps the largest outcry from voters of the Dem party, or polls, or Biden himself when he (rarely) spoke in public.

          Which is why I said:

          If they were worried than they weren’t listening to the criticisms of Biden…

          But this:

          People were making their best guesses with the information they had at the time

          Makes it sound like there was no way to tell Biden was a poor candidate, and people who spent months saying he was were just coincidentally right.

          We just disagree man, you think there was no way to tell, I think it was blatantly obvious and everyone should have been able to tell

          It’s not a big deal that we disagree, we don’t have to keep rehashing it